I agree to not put this changes in the 6.x branch. I also hope that sooner or later we will start to improve the code for request mapper, has suggested some time ago by Martin. The code now is a little messy and a good refatoring would also help to solve problems like this.
just my 2 cents... > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Emond Papegaaij < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Monday 28 October 2013 10:35:26 Martin Grigorov wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Emond Papegaaij >> <[email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Bernard, >>>> >>>> I was not totally convinced of the solution, so I started a thread >> here, >>>> hoping to get some feedback. However, I did not get the feedback I >> wanted. >>>> Martijn did start a really good proposal to fix PageParameters the >> right >>>> way, but this issue got forgotten. I've rebased the wicket-4997 branch >>>> against wicket-6.x. If I get no objections here, I'll merge it back in >>>> this >>>> week. >>> I do have objections. >>> >>> 1) I prefer such changes that may affect the core functionality to go in >>> the non-stable branch first. >>> Since you do not test the voted releases with your applications I am >>> against merging it directly in 6.x >>> >>> As one of the few people working on 7.x I prefer to debug any problems >> that >>> may occur with this change in my small applications instead of >>> compromising the stable branch and my main/dailyjob application. >> Ok, that seems reasonable. I'll merge the branch in 7.x first. >> >>> 2) the second reason to be against is that the release of 6.12 is >> postponed >>> 3 weeks without any indications when it will be cut. >>> I don't want something like this to be merged in 6.x this Thursday and >> 6.12 >>> to be cut on the following day >> I'll ask Martijn what happened with the release schedule. If I merge the >> branch in 7.x first, and merge it in 6.x just after the 6.12 release, would >> that be ok for you? >> > Yes. > Thanks! > > >> Best regards, >> Emond >>
