Am 22.05.2014 21:30, schrieb Andreas Andreou:
> Andreas Andreou: +1 (binding)
Phew, thanks, that makes it easier. :-)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Andreas Andreou: +1 (binding)
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Kalle Korhonen
wrote:
> Right, that's the principle but not a strict requirement. I don't want us
> to get stuck with procedural issues. Voting is supposed to help us with
> coding, not prevent it. We don't vote on all code changes a
Right, that's the principle but not a strict requirement. I don't want us
to get stuck with procedural issues. Voting is supposed to help us with
coding, not prevent it. We don't vote on all code changes and in this case,
we wanted to ask the community's opinion and it looks we have it. We can go
b
On Thu, 22 May 2014 15:58:09 -0300, Jochen Kemnade
wrote:
I thought that only PMC members can cast binding votes,
That's correct.
so, if none of the others vote +1, the vote will eventually fail?
I guess lazy consensus apply here. If I'm correct, the answer is no, it
won't fail. From
I thought that only PMC members can cast binding votes, so, if none of the
others vote +1, the vote will eventually fail?
To get on with this, Jochen please change your vote to binding and close
the vote as successful. We don't want to be paralyzed by non-voting when
there are no votes against.
Kalle
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Howard M. Lewis Ship: +1 (binding)
>
>
> On Wed, May 2
Howard M. Lewis Ship: +1 (binding)
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Ulrich Stärk wrote:
> Ulrich Stärk: +0 (binding)
>
> For the same reasons as stated before.
>
> On 2014-05-18 18:29, Jochen Kemnade wrote:
> > There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
> Java 5 for
Ulrich Stärk: +0 (binding)
For the same reasons as stated before.
On 2014-05-18 18:29, Jochen Kemnade wrote:
> There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with Java 5
> for the upcoming
> 5.4 release. Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009. While requiring Java 6 would
> not br
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo: +1 (binding)
Again, I only see a Java 8 T5.5 if it's a separate JAR.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
http://machina.com.br
-
To unsubscribe,
Can other PMC members please weigh in here. Jochen, no reason to close the
vote till you have a binding majority decision either way.
Kalle
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Kristian Marinkovic <
kristian.marinko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kristian Mairnkovic: +1 (non-binding)
>
> i don't see any re
Kristian Mairnkovic: +1 (non-binding)
i don't see any reason not to raise the minimun requirement to 1.6. i've to
admit most of my Tapestry apps run on Java 1.6. anyways.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Bob Harner wrote:
> Bob Harner: +1 (non-binding)
> On May 18, 2014 1:05 PM, "Jochen Kemnad
Bob Harner: +1 (non-binding)
On May 18, 2014 1:05 PM, "Jochen Kemnade" wrote:
> There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
> Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
> Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
> While requiring Java 6 would not bring us much benefits, there might
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Jochen Kemnade wrote:
There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
> Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
> Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
> While requiring Java 6 would not bring us much benefits, there might be
> some libraries that
Lance Semmens +0 (non-binding)
I can't really see much benefit but I won't stand in the way.
On 18 May 2014 18:05, "Jochen Kemnade" wrote:
> There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
> Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
> Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
> While
Andreas Ernst: +1 (non-binding)
Am 18.05.14 18:29, schrieb Jochen Kemnade:
There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
While requiring Java 6 would not bring us much benefits, there might be
some l
Kalle Korhonen: +1 (non-binding)
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Jochen Kemnade wrote:
> There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
> Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
> Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
> While requiring Java 6 would not bring us much benefits,
There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
While requiring Java 6 would not bring us much benefits, there might be
some libraries that we cannot use because they do not support Java 5.
Also, we'd spa
The cancelation mail hit the list before the actual voting call. The
timestamps were messed up too. So it's canceled and a new vote is yet to be
started. I'll wait until I'm sure that the ASF mail issues are sorted out.
Am 18.05.2014 00:45 schrieb "Howard Lewis Ship" :
> Between VOTE and VOTE CANC
Between VOTE and VOTE CANCELED, not sure what's going any any more.
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Dmitry Gusev wrote:
> Dmitry Gusev: +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Andreas Ernst wrote:
>
> > Andreas Ernst: +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Am 15.05.14 15:14, schrieb Jochen
Dmitry Gusev: +1 (non-binding)
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Andreas Ernst wrote:
> Andreas Ernst: +1 (non-binding)
>
> Am 15.05.14 15:14, schrieb Jochen Kemnade:
>
> There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
>> Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
>> Java 5 is
Andreas Ernst: +1 (non-binding)
Am 15.05.14 15:14, schrieb Jochen Kemnade:
There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
While requiring Java 6 would not bring us much benefits, there might be
some l
Lenny Primak: +1 (non-binding)
A huge +1 for 5.3.8 release that supports Java 8.
> On May 16, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Bob Harner wrote:
>
> Bob Harner: +1 (non-binding)
>
> (As an aside, it's been over a year since our last 5.3.x release. It
> might be good to put out a 5.3.8 release soon, which wi
François Facon: +1 (non-binding)
2014-05-15 15:14 GMT+02:00 Jochen Kemnade :
> There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
> Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
> Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
> While requiring Java 6 would not bring us much benefits, there migh
There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
While requiring Java 6 would not bring us much benefits, there might be
some libraries that we cannot use because they do not support Java 5.
Also, we'd
Bob Harner: +1 (non-binding)
(As an aside, it's been over a year since our last 5.3.x release. It
might be good to put out a 5.3.8 release soon, which will remain Java
5 compatible, of course.)
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Jochen Kemnade
wrote:
> There have been discussions whether we want t
Ulrich Stärk: +0 (binding)
As I said earlier, I don't see the benefit in upgrading to 'just' 1.6 right
now, even if it means we
could use newer versions of our dependencies. If you want to do it anyway I
won't stand in your way.
Cheers,
Uli
On 2014-05-15 15:14, Jochen Kemnade wrote:
> There h
26 matches
Mail list logo
