Johan Compagner wrote:
you didn't count mine! ;)
(and i was the first to say go ahead!)
Oh dear, I'm sorry Johan.
I remember you were the first to give a +1, but not on the [VOTE] message but
already before on my request for reviewing WICKET-983.
When summarizing the vote results I simply
OK, I'm now +1 on this. Paths through things look sensible, and I think
it touches sufficiently little to be manageable. We should merge it, do
some testing, and push out a beta4.
And with that, I'm +1. It also helps that some users expressed their
interest in this, and the fact that you (Ate)
Al Maw wrote:
Ate Douma wrote:
Al Maw wrote:
Gwyn Evans wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2007, 11:28:02 AM, Martijn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would feel more confident in the outcome when Al has had his looksy
on sunday. Shall we at least extend the vote until then? Typical votes
run for
+1
On 9/24/07, Ate Douma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Al Maw wrote:
Ate Douma wrote:
Al Maw wrote:
Gwyn Evans wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2007, 11:28:02 AM, Martijn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would feel more confident in the outcome when Al has had his looksy
on sunday. Shall
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Gwyn Evans wrote:
We should have a vote on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-983
(Merge the portlet support branch into the trunk)
to decide whether we want this in core now or later.
Choices:
[X ] 1) Merge now and accept the (small but
non-zero)
On Thursday, September 20, 2007, 11:09:04 AM, Gwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[X] 1) Merge now and accept the (small but
non-zero) chance of delaying 1.3 a bit.
/Gwyn
Gwyn Evans wrote:
We should have a vote on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-983
(Merge the portlet support branch into the trunk)
to decide whether we want this in core now or later.
Choices:
[X] 1) Merge now and accept the (small but
non-zero) chance of delaying
I'm going to need this, so here's my non-binding vote for what it's worth
[X] 1) Merge now and accept the (small but
non-zero) chance of delaying 1.3 a bit.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
I would feel more confident in the outcome when Al has had his looksy
on sunday. Shall we at least extend the vote until then?
Fine by me, +1
Ate
Typical votes
run for 72 hours, so it wouldn't delay too much if we extend it until
sunday evening or so. If Al hasn't
On Thursday, September 20, 2007, 11:28:02 AM, Martijn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would feel more confident in the outcome when Al has had his looksy
on sunday. Shall we at least extend the vote until then? Typical votes
run for 72 hours, so it wouldn't delay too much if we extend it until
Gwyn Evans wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2007, 11:28:02 AM, Martijn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would feel more confident in the outcome when Al has had his looksy
on sunday. Shall we at least extend the vote until then? Typical votes
run for 72 hours, so it wouldn't delay too much if we
11 matches
Mail list logo
