so, this time with the correct link
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-4532
let me know what you think :-)
Am 06.05.2012 um 01:07 schrieb Peter Ertl:
> right, it's 453-2- :-)
>
>
> Am 05.05.2012 um 20:14 schrieb Sven Meier:
>
>> We're probably talking about WICKET-453*2*, IMHO it
right, it's 453-2- :-)
Am 05.05.2012 um 20:14 schrieb Sven Meier:
> We're probably talking about WICKET-453*2*, IMHO it can still be improved for
> the next 6.0 beta.
>
> Sven
>
> On 05/05/2012 07:00 PM, Emond Papegaaij wrote:
>> The ticket you mentioned is already fixed in 6.0. I fixed it ri
We're probably talking about WICKET-453*2*, IMHO it can still be
improved for the next 6.0 beta.
Sven
On 05/05/2012 07:00 PM, Emond Papegaaij wrote:
The ticket you mentioned is already fixed in 6.0. I fixed it right after
filing it.
Best regards
Emond
Op 5 mei 2012 14:16 schreef "Peter Ertl"
The ticket you mentioned is already fixed in 6.0. I fixed it right after
filing it.
Best regards
Emond
Op 5 mei 2012 14:16 schreef "Peter Ertl" het volgende:
> Hi wicket team,
>
> I would like to fix WICKET-4533 but 6.0.0 is darn close. So could you
> possibly take a look at https://issues.apach
Hi wicket team,
I would like to fix WICKET-4533 but 6.0.0 is darn close. So could you possibly
take a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-4533 and tell me if
it will be okay to commit the patch?
Thanks and best regards
Peter
