Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Java 1.4

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: 2012-01-25 12:31:32
Message-ID: CADK3HHJNqi3EqNWojFaKHJ+d3rrMH5TD8i97yGZgQrR+P035ZQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Maciek SakrejdaDate: 2012-01-25 17:54:06
Subject: Re: GIT move
Previous:From: Dave CramerDate: 2012-01-25 12:18:02
Subject: Re: GIT move

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group