well, those discussions were all based on the fact that we release 1.3 somewhere in june if i recall correctly.
i am fine with 1.4 being _just_ generics if after 1.4 comes out we drop support for 1.3. otherwise it will be like what johan says: most bugs will affect 1.3 and 1.4 since they are the same code base sans generics. after 1.4 comes out we have to start 1.5 immediately because 1.4 will be a very short release (just generics). so the said bug will most likely affect 1.5 as well. so now we have to merge the fix into 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 <== 3 branches to maintain. sucks big time. so if we drop support for 1.3 as soon as we branch 1.4 im fine with 1.4 having just generics. -igor On Dec 15, 2007 5:43 AM, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 15/12/2007, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A general remark about this list is that I also think this actually > > should be 1.4.1. We agreed a long time ago that 1.4 would be only the > > last missing parts of 2.0 (Java 5 related things, most notably > > generics). Like I predicted back then, it is taking us a long time to > > reach 1.3, and we should have the discipline of sticking to what we > > promised way back: 1.4(.0) is about the last 2.0 ports, and after we > > have a good 1.4.0 final, we can start on new features again. > > Totally agree - I think I saw a comment on users@ from Johan or Igor > to the effect that we hadn't had a discussion as to what 1.4 was, > whereas my recollection is that we certainly stated what 1.4.0 was to > be, i.e. as above. > > Personally, I'd be very against anything going into 1.4 that wasn't > either a bug-fix found in 1.3.x or directly related to a 'missing' 2.0 > feature. > > /Gwyn > -- > Download Wicket 1.3.0-rc2 now! - http://wicketframework.org >
