My only concern would be plugins... but since 2.0.9 locked down the plugin
versions that should not be as big an issue any more
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the sentiment is fairly clear. I am going to unwind the
retrotranslating I put in place
Hello,
As you can read at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/
* J2SE 1.4.2 is in its Java Technology End of Life (EOL) transition period*.
The EOL transition period began Dec, 11 2006 and will complete October 30th,
2008
I don't think we have plan yet to release maven 2.1, so I think it would be
a
+1
Milos
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM, nicolas de loof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
As you can read at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/
* J2SE 1.4.2 is in its Java Technology End of Life (EOL) transition period*.
The EOL transition period began Dec, 11 2006 and will complete October
Once we have the toolchains fully in place and allow easy cross-compiling
independently of the JDK running Maven, there seems to be no reason why
the
build tool shouldn't be run with a higher Java than the minimum JRE for
the
project under build.
This is allready not a limitation : I'm
Nicolas De Loof wrote:
I don't think we have plan yet to release maven 2.1, so I think it would
be a valid to require java 1.5 as minimal runtime.
+1 for Maven 2.1, -1 for Maven 2.0.10 (doesn't feel right to bump minimum
requirements in a maintenance branch).
Once we have the toolchains
On Sun, 4 May 2008, nicolas de loof wrote:
Once we have the toolchains fully in place and allow easy cross-compiling
independently of the JDK running Maven, there seems to be no reason why
the
build tool shouldn't be run with a higher Java than the minimum JRE for
the
project under build.
+1 for 2.1, -1 for 2.0.10
On 5/4/08, nicolas de loof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
As you can read at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/
* J2SE 1.4.2 is in its Java Technology End of Life (EOL) transition period*.
The EOL transition period began Dec, 11 2006 and will complete October 30th,
Perhaps 2.1 needs to be changed to 2.2 and then 2.1 can be used for
what would be 2.0.10 + Java5
--jason
On May 4, 2008, at 6:32 PM, Marat Radchenko wrote:
+1 for 2.1, -1 for 2.0.10
On 5/4/08, nicolas de loof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
As you can read at
That could be an option to keep in mind when/if we define a roadmap for 2.1
release.
If a 2.1 release can't be expected soon (i.e some mounth) we could rename it
2.2 and prepare a 2.1 release to be feature equivalent to 2.0.x but require
java5.
That beeing said, changing requirements for a
I don't see getting a tremendous amount of benefit from switching
2.0.10 (or whatever you want to call it) to require 1.5 without in
turn making however benign changes to the codebase...which would not
be fixing issues directly and potentially expressing new ones which
largely takes it out of the
This is already the case for 2.1, and we can't change it in 2.0.10. Just
because we used to break peoples' builds with regularity doesn't mean it
is going to continue.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of nicolas de loof
Sent: Sunday, May 04,
Right about leaving 2.0.10 as is, and use it for maintenance purpose only.
About 2.1 beeing already java 1.5, I can read this in main POM.xml :
artifactIdmaven-compiler-plugin/artifactId
!-- Maybe someday...
configuration
source1.5/source
On 4-May-08, at 10:08 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
Right about leaving 2.0.10 as is, and use it for maintenance purpose
only.
About 2.1 beeing already java 1.5, I can read this in main POM.xml :
artifactIdmaven-compiler-plugin/artifactId
!-- Maybe someday...
I retrotranslated maven-artifact so that users of 1.4 in m2eclipse would
not be inconvenienced. I have not retrotranslated XBR as we asked users
about 1.5 use on the m2eclipse list and the only people that responded were
those who wanted to drop support for 1.4.
Why did this happen on
On 4-May-08, at 11:11 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
I retrotranslated maven-artifact so that users of 1.4 in m2eclipse
would
not be inconvenienced. I have not retrotranslated XBR as we asked
users
about 1.5 use on the m2eclipse list and the only people that
responded were
those who
Right, I missed this thread. I don't understand the Eclipse limitation about
required JRE but can believe there is some impacts. As the same EOL
applies to eclipse, and many eclipse plugin require java5, could we ignore
this platform limitation few users will not survive when maven 2.1 will be
+1 for 2.1, -1 for 2.0.10
Regards,
Garvin LeClaire
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nicolas de loof wrote:
Hello,
As you can read at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/
* J2SE 1.4.2 is in its Java Technology End of Life (EOL) transition period*.
The EOL transition period began Dec, 11 2006 and will
Yah, I think that will be the consensus. I don't really want to find
out we've jacked up someone's environment by forcing 1.5. Brian did a
really awesome job that last release killing many regressions and I'd
like to keep it that way.
On 4-May-08, at 1:06 PM, Garvin LeClaire wrote:
+1
+1 for 2.1
Arnaud
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM, nicolas de loof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
As you can read at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/
* J2SE 1.4.2 is in its Java Technology End of Life (EOL) transition
period*.
The EOL transition period began Dec, 11 2006 and will complete
+1 on maven 2.1
-1 on maven 2.0.x (please don't mess with the current maintenance releases.
even feature enhancements should be minimal. just fix regressions mostly)
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Arnaud HERITIER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 for 2.1
Arnaud
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM,
I think the sentiment is fairly clear. I am going to unwind the
retrotranslating I put in place and leave 2.1 requiring Java 1.5.
On 4-May-08, at 1:35 PM, Sejal Patel wrote:
+1 on maven 2.1
-1 on maven 2.0.x (please don't mess with the current maintenance
releases.
even feature
21 matches
Mail list logo
