I agree with Martin's POV here, but with the additional caveat that API changes and module changes are the same thing, they break backwards compatibility and should be treated the same. Micro releases are bugfix releases. Plain and simple.
Cleaning up the module structure so *anything* can be added should be a priority. OSGi holds very little difference from the transition from C to C++ for people who were there for that. It was a PITA to do it, but once it was done, life got so much better. If 1.6 is going to happen fast, holding off on weld until then is no big deal. If weld goes in to 1.5, it just looks like "business as usual" and the risk that OSGi never makes it in continues to grow. If OSGi never makes it in, big waste of time, would have been easier to start anew today instead of play "kick the can" with everyone and end up empty handed. I don't want any regrets, that just leads to frowns. Small releases, early and often. On Aug 23, 2011, at 3:46 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > -1 to add Weld now > > +1 to add Weld and OSGi in 1.5.(1|2) if they don't need API changes to > be able to work. If they need API changes then they'll have to wait > for 1.6. > I also hope 1.6.0 will need less time than 1.4->1.5. > > I'll revert WICKET-3976 soon. > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]> > wrote: >> bleh, this is turning into another prolonged discussion.... >> >> why dont we just do this...release 1.5 and call it a day. weld can >> come in as a 1.5.1 or 1.5.2 addition - it doesnt touch any core code. >> osgi can wait for 1.6 where it can be implemented properly. >> >> i am changing my vote to -1 to include weld and -1 to include osgi. >> they all came in too late for 1.5 and i think i would rather push it >> out and worry about these things later. >> >> martin, revert the pom change you made for the osgi issue and i will >> build rc6 tomorrow. i think it has a good chance to become 1.5.0. >> >> -igor >> >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> wrote: >>> News flash: >>> >>> If you're going to include OSGi, go ahead and add Weld. They are equally >>> important. Maybe not to you, but to some of us. >>> >>> Wicket 1.5 is not release candidate. Features do not get added to release >>> candidates. Features do not even get added to alpha versions. Read the >>> Release Lifecycle 101 at >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle. >>> >>> If Wicket is not RC, then the features Wicket needs to be a viable release >>> should be added. OSGi is one of them, regardless of whether it's one of >>> your personal favorites or not (and your opinions are pretty clear in the >>> public record). >>> >>> I pushed for OSGi in 1.5 knowing full well that the RC moniker was a >>> charade and that I am just as uneasy of waiting for it as you guys appear >>> to be uneasy of waiting for Weld integration. >>> >>> If 1.5 is released, the next opportunity to add features that would cause >>> the modules to be restructured is 1.6, not 1.5.1. >>> >>> The reality is the RC fantasy should be aborted and the cycle set back to >>> "development mode" so features like Weld can be added and the *proper* work >>> done to add OSGi -- both with necessary module restructurings. >>> >>> Then when that is done, freeze features and start fixing bugs. That's >>> called "alpha". Etc etc. >>> >>> I'll be clear, I think the Apache process has failed on Wicket and if >>> preferential treatment is given to Weld without proper OSGi support also >>> going in, it's going to be an unmitigated disaster that is worthy of a >>> review by the Apache board. It may be worthy of a review in any event. >>> >>> Back to the regularly scheduled programming.... >>> >>> On Aug 22, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: >>> >>>> Wicket Weld is a really nice to have for wicket 1.5 and would increase >>>> the importance of our release pretty considerably. The issue with >>>> wicket-weld is that it requires java 6, and it is late in the release >>>> game for 1.5 final. >>>> >>>> We have experience with building mixed java releases (see our 1.3 >>>> history), though the build process was not pretty. >>>> >>>> In order to enable wicket-weld we need to do the following IMO: >>>> - create java5 and java6 modules in trunk, each configured with the >>>> correct java version >>>> - commit wicket-weld as a submodule for the java 6 module >>>> - move wicket-examples to java 6 module >>>> - move all other wicket modules to the java 5 module >>>> - fix the wicket parent pom to have a java 5 profile and a java 6 profile >>>> - fix the build script to run different maven setups utilizing a java >>>> 5 home directory and a java 6 home directory >>>> - fix the build script to run java 5 compilation first and then only >>>> java 6 for packaging (without clean) this will keep the java 5 >>>> compiled classes and re-package them during the java 6 run >>>> >>>> This is some work, and as I said, we are late in the release game. If >>>> 1.5 final was this week I wouldn't propose to do this, but perhaps do >>>> it in 1.5.1 or 1.5.2. However, since 1.5-rc6 is still not complete we >>>> might do this now. I'm open to suggestions on whether to include >>>> wicket-weld or not. >>>> >>>> Martijn >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Martin Grigorov > jWeekend > Training, Consulting, Development > http://jWeekend.com >
