Re: Where are we WRT the JDK decision?

2003-04-04 Thread Conor MacNeill
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 06:28 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > IIUC we don't have a 1.1 compatibility requirement for CVS HEAD any > longer, so that is fine. This is the case - I just need to write up an email about it which I'll try to do tonight. Conor -- Conor MacNeill Blog: http://codefeed.com/blo

Where are we WRT the JDK decision?

2003-04-04 Thread Stefan Bodewig
When I fixed the JDepend task, I made it depend on JDK 1.2 - which is fine as JDepend has the same dependency. I'll shortly commit the JUnit Report patches and those contain workarounds for the famous StringBuffer#toString memory leak[1] in JDK 1.4.1. Unfortunately the workaround is to use StringB