Yes I think we use it the same way. But hopefully without setting the
Resolution and Status. If you plan to fix it for a specific version the
status shouldn't be resolved or fixed and the resolution shouldn't be !=
fixed.
IMHO,
Frank
On 11/4/07, David Bernard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my
So how do you express :
issue was plan for version X
job was done for version X and the job is won't fix or resolve
?
Frank Bille wrote:
Yes I think we use it the same way. But hopefully without setting the
Resolution and Status. If you plan to fix it for a specific version the
status shouldn't
But what can use that information for? You have the timestamps on the issue
for when someone has marked it as won't fix, which can be used if you want
to reopen it.
I think it's a mismatch between *FIX* version and anything other than
*FIXED*.
My 2c.
Frank
On 11/4/07, David Bernard [EMAIL
I got myself convinced that it was the most correct thing to not have fix
version with something that is not fixed.
Frank
On 11/4/07, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what can use that information for? You have the timestamps on the
issue for when someone has marked it as won't fix,
You're right. It's a workaround, fix version should be labelled planned/done
version.
Frank Bille wrote:
I got myself convinced that it was the most correct thing to not have fix
version with something that is not fixed.
Frank
On 11/4/07, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what can
I think the current setup is sufficient. Fix version + not resolved ==
planned for, Fix version + resolved == fixed in
Introducing more permutations is going to confuse the hell out of us even more.
Martijn
On 11/4/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jip i think that jira should have
On 11/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
finally found the right setting in eclipse..
So that long lines (like strings or long method names)
are not doing this:
object
.xx
but they are just still
object.xx
don't know if that is a 3.4 feature or not.
But it should be in the wicket formatter thats attached to the wicket
project
Look at the line wrapping section. And the functions call section. There you
can say what to do
for the functions call. And i have now 1 of those like wrap when nesecarry
but
Hi all,
I have created a wiki page[1] for the release notes which will be sent to
the various mailing lists as well as submitted to misc sites.
Can someone please review the release notes and fix any bugs/spelings etc.?
Regards
Frank
[1]: http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/wicket-130-rc1.html
[X] Release Apache Wicket 1.3.0-rc1
On Nov 4, 2007 3:27 PM, jweekend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1.3.0-rc1; that has a very pleasant ring to it, congratulations!
I was still expecting beta5, so this is a nice surprise.
Regards - Cemal
http://jWeekend.co.uk http://jWeekend.co.uk
Frank
I meant going yourself, not paying for me!
Being at an Apache Conference helps the Apache Foundation by:
- your presence
- your monetary 'donation'
I think going to an Apache Conference yourself and meeting with the
folks behind the scenes is much more helpful for the community than
keeping a
Also, for the less fortunate I believe there are some funds available
through the ASF to get help attending an Apache Conference. Though I
do think you'd at least need to be a Member to apply.
But the best odds to get to the conference without having to pay
(much) are to prepare and give a talk,
I meant going yourself, not paying for me!
But i have no problem if somebody is paying for me!! :)
On 11/4/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I meant going yourself, not paying for me!
But i have no problem if somebody is paying for me!! :)
Neither do I, but I found the difference between keeping
wicketfarmework.org alive (about 10-15 euros per year) in stark
contrast to a ticket
Matej Knopp wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that if you add empty div / tags to firefox, it treats it
like if you forgot to close it.
There seem to be some misconceptions about what div / means in this
thread.
It is true that in XML div/div and div/ are equivalent. However
XHTML (at least 1.0) has
[x] Release Apache Wicket 1.3.0-rc1
-igor
[x] Release Apache Wicket 1.3.0-rc1
Gerolf
At the moment, you can't set the number of items on an
AbstractPageableView without it also calling getRowCount().
The reason for this is that internalSetRowsPerPage(int) calls
setCurrentPage(0), and that itself does a check to see if the page index
you're setting is out of range, which
fine with me
-igor
On 11/4/07, Al Maw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the moment, you can't set the number of items on an
AbstractPageableView without it also calling getRowCount().
The reason for this is that internalSetRowsPerPage(int) calls
setCurrentPage(0), and that itself does a check to
19 matches
Mail list logo
