Re: Java 1.4
От | Dave Cramer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Java 1.4 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADK3HHLyarP27CHomid9FEFrfR8XXYWJeo_LN5dQ2LUawE4N3w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Java 1.4 (Kjetil Nygård <polpot78@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Java 1.4
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
OK, After talking to a few folks here at pgcon I think it's time to move on and stop supporting 1.4. There's even some talk that we don't need to support 1.5 either. Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Kjetil Nygård <polpot78@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > According to zeroturnaround.com's latest survey, only 6% of the java > developers are stuck on 1.4 or older. > > I also think that those who are stuck on java 1.4, are probably stuck > with an older postgresql-server anyways :-( > > > -kny > > > > On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 13:25 -0400, Dave Cramer wrote: >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: