From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
Cc: | Steven Schlansker <stevenschlansker(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Java 1.4 |
Date: | 2012-05-17 17:25:41 |
Message-ID: | CADK3HH+Cw56YGiepVMefJo_LHrFyxc8wdHDm5B=YjXGK+FpYSg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | 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(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2012-05-17 17:36:49 | Re: Connection-fail-over |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-05-17 17:23:39 | Re: Connection-fail-over |