On May 3, 2005, at 6:13 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
That's actually an appealing argument to me: 1.3 = 1.2 + trace-level, 2.0 =
everything else, i.e what we currently call 1.3. I wonder if this is the
right time to discuss that.
I am bothered that a 2.0 label might reduce the pressure for release or to be compatible with the 1.2.x series, but I could see several desirable effects. As long is the pressure is on for the next major release to address some of the unfortunate incompatibilities that have been introduced in the code base, I'd be fine with a relabeling of the next major release.
A change of the major release to name to 2.0 could provide the cover for some desirable intentional code breakage. For example, a lot of internal classes (for example, LoggingEvent) and a few external classes (Logger) should not be extended but were not marked as final. Marking them as final now would break some fringe code, but code that could would likely break on any refactoring of the code.
A change in the label could also provide cover for a change in the minimum JDK needed or remove the vestiges of JDK 1.1 code. I don't think raising the bar to JDK 1.5 is acceptable, but perhaps we could have a JDK 1.3 compatible code base that can transformed to use typed collections, for example.
Whether or not there is a viable set of changes that would a minor release, but I'd have no problem with it assuming the 1.3 label, but it might be better to bump it to 1.4 to avoid confusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
