Hi Martin, Thanks very much for this answer. Well then, in my own point of view, that's fine like you described...
Best regards, Sebastien. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org>wrote: > Hey, > > Let's talk with numbers, well dates. > > 1.5.0 is announced at Sep 7 2011. > 6.0.0 is announced at Sep 5 2012. > > In my first mail in this thread I said "feature complete, so let's release > a milestone/rc". > Summer holidays come so I think the final release won't be in the next > month or two. > It took 8 months for 1.5 (RC1 - Jan 22 2011) and 5 months for 6.0 (beta1 - > Mar 26 2012) to be in RC stage. > > There is a difference than 1.5/6.0 - in 7.0 there are no big refactorings > which will make the migration and testing hard for apps coming from 6.x. > Additionally I can say that the migration > guide< > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Migration+to+Wicket+7.0 > > > has > never been so complete. > > So a major release has 2 years life. Actually even more because 1.5.x will > be supported until 7.0.3/4 before be moved to security maintenance mode. At > least this has been the case with the previous releases. > Additionally I think it is OK to be supported even more if a core developer > volunteers to do this, because he has a client or another reason. If Sven > (or anyone else who can make a release) wants to add a fix to 1.3.x branch > and release it then all is fine. > > In summary - no, there are no new big features in Wicket 7. There are minor > API improvements/breaks here and there, and requirements for Java 7 and > Servlet 3.0. But I think we should keep our pace and release a new major > release once per year. Postponing 7.0 will only increase the changes in the > APIs and make the migration more painful for our users. > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Sebastien <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I am in the same case where my customer also did not yet migrate to > wicket > > 6... So, in my user point of view, I agree with Sven, I think that one > > major release by year is enough... > > Sure, It does not prevent to start working on the next feature(s) and > > release some betas once one of these is implemented... > > > > My 2cts, > > Sebastien. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > if we continue to release a major version every 9 months, we will > either > > > have to support more branches or drop support for an old version every > 9 > > > months. > > > For my type of customers this scenario sounds scary. Some of them just > > > managed to migrate to Wicket 6 :(. > > > > > > So do we really want to publish a new release so soon? Is there > something > > > important (already) in Wicket 7 that people are waiting for? > > > > > > Best regards > > > Sven > > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/26/2013 01:20 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > > > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> I'd like to discuss where we are with Wicket 7 and what to do next. > > >> > > >> At the moment there are just > > >> 3<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/issues/?jql=project%20%** > > >> 3D%20WICKET%20AND%**20fixVersion%20%3D%20%227.0.0%** > > >> 22%20AND%20status%20in%20(**Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%** > > >> 2C%20Reopened)%20ORDER%20BY%**20created%20DESC%2C%20summary%**20ASC< > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20WICKET%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%227.0.0%22%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20ORDER%20BY%20created%20DESC%2C%20summary%20ASC > > > > > >> > > > >> tickets > > >> with "Fix Version" 7.0.0. > > >> > > >> One <https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/WICKET-5172< > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5172>> > > >> of them is about > > >> adding a link for the javadoc at http://wicket.apache.org. Trivial. > > >> > > >> Another <https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/WICKET-4951< > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-4951>> > > >> is about > > >> CDI-1.1. John Sarman is helping here. Thanks! > > >> > > >> And the last <https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/WICKET-5184< > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5184>> > > >> one is > > >> about the signature of AbstractTree/Model.ofSet(). I don't see a good > > >> solution here, but I have provided a workaround. > > >> > > >> > > >> In the roadmap page there is also: > > >> > > >> Refactor checkgroup/radiogroup to make them non > > >> components<https://cwiki.**apache.org/confluence/display/** > > >> WICKET/Wicket+7.0+Roadmap#**Wicket7.0Roadmap-**Refactorcheckgroup%** > > >> 2Fradiogrouptomakethemnoncompo**nents< > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Wicket+7.0+Roadmap#Wicket7.0Roadmap-Refactorcheckgroup%2Fradiogrouptomakethemnoncomponents > > > > > >> .> > > >> - > > >> @Igor: do you want to work yourself on this ? Otherwise please give > more > > >> details how you imagine the new way. > > >> > > >> Make CSS class strings used in the framework > > >> configurable<https://cwiki.**apache.org/confluence/display/** > > >> WICKET/Wicket+7.0+Roadmap#**Wicket7.0Roadmap-** > > >> Makecssclassstringsusedinthefr**ameworkconfigurable< > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Wicket+7.0+Roadmap#Wicket7.0Roadmap-Makecssclassstringsusedintheframeworkconfigurable > > > > > >> > > > >> - > > >> this one is clear. If there are no objections then I'll pick it soon > > >> (unless someone else does it before me). > > >> > > >> I'm going to investigate few tickets about bookmarkable mappers > > >> (MountMapper, MountedMapper, PackageMapper and ResourceMapper) and > their > > >> handling of named parameters in the path/segments. > > >> > > >> Unless someone has more ideas what can be improved for Wicket 7 I > think > > we > > >> are pretty close to be "feature complete" and we can release a > milestone > > >> or > > >> release candidate. > > >> > > >> I'd like to thank Cedric Gatay, Michael Mossman, Andrea Del Bene and > > John > > >> Sarman for their help so far! > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
