On Sun, 19 Oct 2008, Martijn Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know i have not been really active for some time now
don't worry, we all have times where we can contribute more and times
when we can't do as much as we wanted to.
> The choice should not only be based on what new language fea
Hello
I know i have not been really active for some time now (changed house,
then job) yet I manage to remember previous discussions.
I still feel that the following reasoning is flawed:
There has been some discussion about dropping support for Java 1.3 in
trunk. One of the aguments against
5:02:40 PM
Subject: Re: Java version required for trunk
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Jeffrey E. Care <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think moving to 1.4 is fine; I'm actually kind of surprised that
> we've even go that low. Do we have a sense that people are still out
> there in the
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Jeffrey E. Care <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think moving to 1.4 is fine; I'm actually kind of surprised that
> we've even go that low. Do we have a sense that people are still out
> there in the wild using JDK 1.4?
I'm one of them myself, stuck with a customer who has fina
> From: Jeffrey E Care [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 4:32 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: Java version required for trunk
>
> I think moving to 1.4 is fine; I'm actually kind of surprised that
> we've
> even go that l
Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/15/2008 12:31:21 AM:
> [snip]
>
> There has been some discussion about dropping support for Java 1.3 in
> trunk. One of the aguments against it was that 1.4 doesn't offer
> anything new and going from 1.3 to Java5 was too big a step.
>
> Given that
Hi,
> There has been some discussion about dropping support for Java 1.3 in
> trunk. One of the aguments against it was that 1.4 doesn't offer
> anything new and going from 1.3 to Java5 was too big a step.
I'd personally argue that Java5 doesn't really offer very much apart
from window dressing,
