Re: Java 1.4
От | Dave Cramer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Java 1.4 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADK3HH+Cw56YGiepVMefJo_LHrFyxc8wdHDm5B=YjXGK+FpYSg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Java 1.4 (Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Java 1.4
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
This topic just came up again. I am going to propose that we drop support for 1.4 if there are no objections ? Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Dave Cramer wrote: >> >>> It occurs to me that if we move to git then we can keep two branches >>> active. One branch would support 1.4 for backpatches and the other >>> branch would drop 1.4 support and new features would be developed on >>> that line. >> >> I don't think this is a real feasible option. Who is really going to take >> it upon themselves to maintain this separate 1.4 branch? Do patch >> submitters need to submit two versions of every patch, one for 1.4 and one >> for 1.5+. Git is not going to magically make this all work. >> >> Kris Jurka >> > > Well my suggestion was that the 1.4 branch would only get bug fix > support, not new features. However you are correct multiple patches > would be required which would increase the effort required to submit > patches. I would agree this is not what we want. > > If we are in agreement to drop 1.4 support then this discussion is moot. > > Does anyone have any strong objections to dropping 1.4 support ? > > Dave Cramer > > dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca > http://www.credativ.ca
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: