On 10/10/2016 19:28, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Hi folks,
+1 for 1.5.
If in the future we have the need to move to a more recent version (ie:
because a patch), then we should discuss it.
Hi,
we *are* discussing exactly that.
At the moment we have a couple of patches on hold, for COCOON-2354
Hi folks,
+1 for 1.5.
If in the future we have the need to move to a more recent version (ie:
because a patch), then we should discuss it.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
On 07/10/16 03:46, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
> Hi all,
> as recently noticed during the (unfortunately rejected) patch
FYI,
another applied patch that we should reject instead, because it requires
1.5:
https://builds.apache.org/job/Cocoon%202.1.X/111/console
On 08/10/2016 13:14, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
Wow, did not expect this...
To be clear, are you proposing to move to 1.8 the binary AND source
Wow, did not expect this...
To be clear, are you proposing to move to 1.8 the binary AND source
compatibility?
Even wilder: how would you see moving the 2_1_X branch to GIT with github
integration, thus allowing us accepting pull requests?
We'll definitely need some help here...
Regards.
Il 8
I agree. It should also enable better participation at both Cocoon
and at Apache Forrest. There were also many supporting products
that could then be updated. Lets go to 8.
-David
Insight 49 wrote:
> +1, and I strongly agree with Alfred.
>
> Cocoon 2.1 is a good stable platform, but doesn't
+1, and I strongly agree with Alfred.
Cocoon 2.1 is a good stable platform, but doesn't encourage new
participation, partly I suspect, because many people and businesses
run Java 8 or 7 (as you know, you get all kinds of build errors when
trying to build cocoon using those Java versions).
If we
+1 but I would go straight to 6, 7, or even 8.
Past experience is that it is a real nuisance trying to support an ancient JDK
no developer is actually using anymore.
Cheers, Alfred.
-Original Message-
From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgro...@apache.org]
Sent: Freitag, 7. Oktober
