Joerg Heinicke skrev:
On 15.08.2006 17:28, Jason Johnston wrote:
I am interested (and I think the community needs to know) what
Joerg's criteria for approving an eventual move to 1.5 would need to
be, in some measurable way. I'm sure he would agree that at some
point in the future moving to
* Antonio Gallardo:
Yes, please stop this thread. We can revisit this issue
later. Perhaps our next major version will use java 1.5 as the
minimal version. After all this is not stopping developers to
use java 1.5 for his development needs, it is just cocoon that
needs to be
On 15.08.2006 22:18, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Now if experiments with retroweaver/retrotranslator show that we can use
Java 1.5 _and_ produce libraries that work in a Java 1.4 environment,
the above problem should be resolved and Joerg should be able to retract
his veto. Right Joerg?
In
On 15.08.2006 17:28, Jason Johnston wrote:
I am interested (and I think the community needs to know) what
Joerg's criteria for approving an eventual move to 1.5 would need to be,
in some measurable way. I'm sure he would agree that at some point in
the future moving to 1.5+ will be
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Now something about vetoing:
According to
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
The rules require that a negative vote includes an alternative
proposal or a detailed explanation of the reasons for the negative vote.
The community then tries
Hi,
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
To summarize how I understand the situation:
Joerg's main reason for the veto against using Java 5 in Cocoon 2.2 is
that we would risk losing some of our user base.
I would be happier hearing this argument after a poll of the user list
to see how many people:
Andrew Savory skrev:
Hi,
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
To summarize how I understand the situation:
Joerg's main reason for the veto against using Java 5 in Cocoon 2.2
is that we would risk losing some of our user base.
I would be happier hearing this argument after a poll of the user list
to
Reinhard Poetz escribió:
If I interpret our voting rules correctly, the proposal has been
rejected because of the -1 vote.
Yes, please stop this thread. We can revisit this issue later. Perhaps
our next major version will use java 1.5 as the minimal version. After
all this is not stopping
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
here are the results:
15 binding +1
1 non-binding +1
1 binding +0
1 binding -0
1 binding -1
If I
On 8/15/06, Reinhard Poetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
here are the results:
15 binding +1
1 non-binding +1
1 binding +0
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On 8/15/06, Reinhard Poetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I interpret our voting rules correctly, the proposal has been rejected
because of the -1 vote.
I disagree. Joerg has not given us any real reason why Cocoon 2.2
needs to run on any of these older platforms. In
On 15 Aug 2006, at 16:01, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
I disagree. Joerg has not given us any real reason why Cocoon 2.2
needs to run on any of these older platforms. In order for a veto to
be considered valid it must be based on a real problem.
He has, but it seems you're not accepting them :-P
Jorg Heymans skrev:
...
I'ld say we stop argueing about this and use our time more
constructively to experiment with the retroweaver. I hear it has an ant
task, integrating it into our build process should be a breeze then.
This seem like a reasonable proposal to me.
To
On 8/15/06, Jorg Heymans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006, at 16:01, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
I disagree. Joerg has not given us any real reason why Cocoon 2.2
needs to run on any of these older platforms. In order for a veto to
be considered valid it must be based on a real problem.
Jason Johnston wrote:
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On 8/15/06, Reinhard Poetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I interpret our voting rules correctly, the proposal has been
rejected
because of the -1 vote.
I disagree. Joerg has not given us any real reason why Cocoon 2.2
needs to run on any of
15 matches
Mail list logo
