build is successful .... That's weird ... will try to manually update the dependencies for one of the modules
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> wrote: > WICKET-6105 was merged :)) > I'm checking wicketstuff build :) > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > >> That's a plan! >> >> Sven >> >> >> >> Am 07.10.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Andrea Del Bene: >> >>> Sure we should! But I'd like not to break the build when we will merge >>> (hopefully soon) WICKET-6105. After we have merged it we will have all >>> the >>> time to migrate the code to the new extensions module. >>> >>> On Oct 7, 2017 5:32 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <solomax...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> This make sense :) >>>> I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to use the >>>>> >>>> new >>>> >>>>> classes in wicket-extensions. >>>>> We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do we? >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Sven >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for >>>>>> three >>>>>> subprojects: >>>>>> >>>>>> - wicket-scala >>>>>> >>>>>> - inmethod-grid >>>>>> >>>>>> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have >>>>>> migrated to WicketStuff. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> WBR >>>> Maxim aka solomax >>>> >>>> >> > > > -- > WBR > Maxim aka solomax > -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
