Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Andrea Del Bene]

I think we are ready to proceed with the release. To port WICKET-6999 I've
added osgi configuration also to experimental modules modules for HTTP2:

https://github.com/apache/wicket/commit/3054cb6249dfdc61efa5ded2f419359edf847224

It should be ok, just let me know if I did something wrong.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 9:16 PM Matt Pavlovich  wrote:

> PR #540 is ready for review. I completed updates for the wicket modules
> that we use and can spot check.
>
> Note— It would be contract-breaking to ship wicket-9.x w/ slf4j 2.0
> without this change in place, so next up it’d be good to back-port this to
> the wicket-9.x branch and get some testing underway.
>
> Completed:
>
> wicket-util
> wicket-request
> wicket-core
> wicket-auth-roles
> wicket-devutils
> wicket-extensions
> wicket-jmx
>
> Not yet updated:
>
> wicket-bean-validation
> wicket-cdi
> wicket-guice
> wicket-ioc
> wicket-native-websocket
> wicket-objectsizeof-agent
> wicket-spring
> wicket-velocity
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> > On Sep 30, 2022, at 12:44 PM, Matt Pavlovich  wrote:
> >
> > Update — draft PR here: https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/540 <
> https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/540>
> >
> > This PR works for wicket-util and wicket-request modules right now.
> >
> > At issue is the use of enforcer plugin to limit configurations
> per-execution. maven-bundle-plugin runs at various phases and if there is
> not a config for each, the default behavior will execute on the last phase
> and we don’t get the version override as configured in the 'instructions'.
> I’m working on identifying the last goal that runs and perhaps we can get
> away with a single definition for that phase without changing the enforcer
> plugin rules.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matt
> >
> >> On Sep 29, 2022, at 2:35 PM, Andrea Del Bene  > wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you Matt!
> >>
> >> On 29/09/22 16:43, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> >>> I got pulled off onto other tasks. I will have time to get the PR out
> this weekend.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Matt Pavlovich
> >>>
>  On Sep 29, 2022, at 6:19 AM, Andrea Del Bene  > wrote:
> 
>  I think I've lost track about this activity...what do we still miss to
>  proceed with the new release?
>  Thank you.
> 
>  On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 6:19 PM Matt Pavlovich  > wrote:
> 
> > I can help w/ the OSGi import package. Should just be a simple
> override in
> > the bundle plugin config.
> >
> >> On Sep 15, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Andrea Del Bene  >
> > wrote:
> >> I agree with Martijn. Probably the downgrade is the best solution
> at the
> > moment. Like Martin suggests it would be nice to investigate how
> > Import-Package for OSGi are generated, but it's not a trivial task
> and we
> > need someone with more experience with OSGi
> >> On 14/09/22 09:22, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> >>> IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket
> > perspective
> >>> it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right?
> >>>
> >>> If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note
> that one
> > can
> >>> easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires.
> >>>
> >>> This will keep it working for most folks, yet give an upgrade path
> for
> >>> those that wish so. It is harder to convince someone to downgrade
> from
> > 2.0
> >>> to 1.7 than to upgrade to 2.0 from 1.7.
> >>>
> >>> But this is my .02 (which is even worth less with the current
> exchange
> >>> rates).
> >> ...
> >>> Martijn
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>  --
>  Andrea Del Bene.
>  Apache Wicket committer.
> >
>
>

-- 
Andrea Del Bene.
Apache Wicket committer.

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Matt Pavlovich]

PR #540 is ready for review. I completed updates for the wicket modules that we 
use and can spot check.

Note— It would be contract-breaking to ship wicket-9.x w/ slf4j 2.0 without 
this change in place, so next up it’d be good to back-port this to the 
wicket-9.x branch and get some testing underway.

Completed:

wicket-util
wicket-request
wicket-core
wicket-auth-roles
wicket-devutils
wicket-extensions
wicket-jmx

Not yet updated:

wicket-bean-validation
wicket-cdi
wicket-guice
wicket-ioc
wicket-native-websocket
wicket-objectsizeof-agent
wicket-spring
wicket-velocity

Thanks,
Matt

> On Sep 30, 2022, at 12:44 PM, Matt Pavlovich  wrote:
> 
> Update — draft PR here: https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/540 
> 
> 
> This PR works for wicket-util and wicket-request modules right now.
> 
> At issue is the use of enforcer plugin to limit configurations per-execution. 
> maven-bundle-plugin runs at various phases and if there is not a config for 
> each, the default behavior will execute on the last phase and we don’t get 
> the version override as configured in the 'instructions'. I’m working on 
> identifying the last goal that runs and perhaps we can get away with a single 
> definition for that phase without changing the enforcer plugin rules.
> 
> Thanks,
> Matt
> 
>> On Sep 29, 2022, at 2:35 PM, Andrea Del Bene > > wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you Matt!
>> 
>> On 29/09/22 16:43, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>>> I got pulled off onto other tasks. I will have time to get the PR out this 
>>> weekend.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Matt Pavlovich
>>> 
 On Sep 29, 2022, at 6:19 AM, Andrea Del Bene >>> > wrote:
 
 I think I've lost track about this activity...what do we still miss to
 proceed with the new release?
 Thank you.
 
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 6:19 PM Matt Pavlovich >>> > wrote:
 
> I can help w/ the OSGi import package. Should just be a simple override in
> the bundle plugin config.
> 
>> On Sep 15, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Andrea Del Bene > >
> wrote:
>> I agree with Martijn. Probably the downgrade is the best solution at the
> moment. Like Martin suggests it would be nice to investigate how
> Import-Package for OSGi are generated, but it's not a trivial task and we
> need someone with more experience with OSGi
>> On 14/09/22 09:22, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>>> IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket
> perspective
>>> it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right?
>>> 
>>> If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note that one
> can
>>> easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires.
>>> 
>>> This will keep it working for most folks, yet give an upgrade path for
>>> those that wish so. It is harder to convince someone to downgrade from
> 2.0
>>> to 1.7 than to upgrade to 2.0 from 1.7.
>>> 
>>> But this is my .02 (which is even worth less with the current exchange
>>> rates).
>> ...
>>> Martijn
>>> 
>>> 
> 
 -- 
 Andrea Del Bene.
 Apache Wicket committer.
> 

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Matt Pavlovich]

Update — draft PR here: https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/540 


This PR works for wicket-util and wicket-request modules right now.

At issue is the use of enforcer plugin to limit configurations per-execution. 
maven-bundle-plugin runs at various phases and if there is not a config for 
each, the default behavior will execute on the last phase and we don’t get the 
version override as configured in the 'instructions'. I’m working on 
identifying the last goal that runs and perhaps we can get away with a single 
definition for that phase without changing the enforcer plugin rules.

Thanks,
Matt

> On Sep 29, 2022, at 2:35 PM, Andrea Del Bene  wrote:
> 
> Thank you Matt!
> 
> On 29/09/22 16:43, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
>> I got pulled off onto other tasks. I will have time to get the PR out this 
>> weekend.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Matt Pavlovich
>> 
>>> On Sep 29, 2022, at 6:19 AM, Andrea Del Bene  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think I've lost track about this activity...what do we still miss to
>>> proceed with the new release?
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 6:19 PM Matt Pavlovich  wrote:
>>> 
 I can help w/ the OSGi import package. Should just be a simple override in
 the bundle plugin config.
 
> On Sep 15, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Andrea Del Bene 
 wrote:
> I agree with Martijn. Probably the downgrade is the best solution at the
 moment. Like Martin suggests it would be nice to investigate how
 Import-Package for OSGi are generated, but it's not a trivial task and we
 need someone with more experience with OSGi
> On 14/09/22 09:22, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket
 perspective
>> it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right?
>> 
>> If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note that one
 can
>> easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires.
>> 
>> This will keep it working for most folks, yet give an upgrade path for
>> those that wish so. It is harder to convince someone to downgrade from
 2.0
>> to 1.7 than to upgrade to 2.0 from 1.7.
>> 
>> But this is my .02 (which is even worth less with the current exchange
>> rates).
> ...
>> Martijn
>> 
>> 
 
>>> -- 
>>> Andrea Del Bene.
>>> Apache Wicket committer.

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Andrea Del Bene]

Thank you Matt!

On 29/09/22 16:43, Matt Pavlovich wrote:

I got pulled off onto other tasks. I will have time to get the PR out this 
weekend.

Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich


On Sep 29, 2022, at 6:19 AM, Andrea Del Bene  wrote:

I think I've lost track about this activity...what do we still miss to
proceed with the new release?
Thank you.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 6:19 PM Matt Pavlovich  wrote:


I can help w/ the OSGi import package. Should just be a simple override in
the bundle plugin config.


On Sep 15, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Andrea Del Bene 

wrote:

I agree with Martijn. Probably the downgrade is the best solution at the

moment. Like Martin suggests it would be nice to investigate how
Import-Package for OSGi are generated, but it's not a trivial task and we
need someone with more experience with OSGi

On 14/09/22 09:22, Martijn Dashorst wrote:

IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket

perspective

it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right?

If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note that one

can

easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires.

This will keep it working for most folks, yet give an upgrade path for
those that wish so. It is harder to convince someone to downgrade from

2.0

to 1.7 than to upgrade to 2.0 from 1.7.

But this is my .02 (which is even worth less with the current exchange
rates).

...

Martijn





--
Andrea Del Bene.
Apache Wicket committer.

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Matt Pavlovich]

I got pulled off onto other tasks. I will have time to get the PR out this 
weekend.

Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich

> On Sep 29, 2022, at 6:19 AM, Andrea Del Bene  wrote:
> 
> I think I've lost track about this activity...what do we still miss to
> proceed with the new release?
> Thank you.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 6:19 PM Matt Pavlovich  wrote:
> 
>> I can help w/ the OSGi import package. Should just be a simple override in
>> the bundle plugin config.
>> 
>>> On Sep 15, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Andrea Del Bene 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I agree with Martijn. Probably the downgrade is the best solution at the
>> moment. Like Martin suggests it would be nice to investigate how
>> Import-Package for OSGi are generated, but it's not a trivial task and we
>> need someone with more experience with OSGi
>>> 
>>> On 14/09/22 09:22, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
 IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket
>> perspective
 it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right?
 
 If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note that one
>> can
 easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires.
 
 This will keep it working for most folks, yet give an upgrade path for
 those that wish so. It is harder to convince someone to downgrade from
>> 2.0
 to 1.7 than to upgrade to 2.0 from 1.7.
 
 But this is my .02 (which is even worth less with the current exchange
 rates).
>>> ...
 Martijn
 
 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrea Del Bene.
> Apache Wicket committer.

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Martin Grigorov]

Nothing has changed.

I am fine to proceed with the release.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 2:20 PM Andrea Del Bene 
wrote:

> I think I've lost track about this activity...what do we still miss to
> proceed with the new release?
> Thank you.
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 6:19 PM Matt Pavlovich  wrote:
>
> > I can help w/ the OSGi import package. Should just be a simple override
> in
> > the bundle plugin config.
> >
> > > On Sep 15, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Andrea Del Bene 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with Martijn. Probably the downgrade is the best solution at
> the
> > moment. Like Martin suggests it would be nice to investigate how
> > Import-Package for OSGi are generated, but it's not a trivial task and we
> > need someone with more experience with OSGi
> > >
> > > On 14/09/22 09:22, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > >> IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket
> > perspective
> > >> it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right?
> > >>
> > >> If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note that
> one
> > can
> > >> easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires.
> > >>
> > >> This will keep it working for most folks, yet give an upgrade path for
> > >> those that wish so. It is harder to convince someone to downgrade from
> > 2.0
> > >> to 1.7 than to upgrade to 2.0 from 1.7.
> > >>
> > >> But this is my .02 (which is even worth less with the current exchange
> > >> rates).
> > > ...
> > >> Martijn
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Andrea Del Bene.
> Apache Wicket committer.
>

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Andrea Del Bene]

I think I've lost track about this activity...what do we still miss to
proceed with the new release?
Thank you.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 6:19 PM Matt Pavlovich  wrote:

> I can help w/ the OSGi import package. Should just be a simple override in
> the bundle plugin config.
>
> > On Sep 15, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Andrea Del Bene 
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Martijn. Probably the downgrade is the best solution at the
> moment. Like Martin suggests it would be nice to investigate how
> Import-Package for OSGi are generated, but it's not a trivial task and we
> need someone with more experience with OSGi
> >
> > On 14/09/22 09:22, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> >> IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket
> perspective
> >> it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right?
> >>
> >> If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note that one
> can
> >> easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires.
> >>
> >> This will keep it working for most folks, yet give an upgrade path for
> >> those that wish so. It is harder to convince someone to downgrade from
> 2.0
> >> to 1.7 than to upgrade to 2.0 from 1.7.
> >>
> >> But this is my .02 (which is even worth less with the current exchange
> >> rates).
> > ...
> >> Martijn
> >>
> >>
>
>

-- 
Andrea Del Bene.
Apache Wicket committer.

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Matt Pavlovich]

I can help w/ the OSGi import package. Should just be a simple override in the 
bundle plugin config.

> On Sep 15, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Andrea Del Bene  wrote:
> 
> I agree with Martijn. Probably the downgrade is the best solution at the 
> moment. Like Martin suggests it would be nice to investigate how 
> Import-Package for OSGi are generated, but it's not a trivial task and we 
> need someone with more experience with OSGi
> 
> On 14/09/22 09:22, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket perspective
>> it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right?
>> 
>> If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note that one can
>> easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires.
>> 
>> This will keep it working for most folks, yet give an upgrade path for
>> those that wish so. It is harder to convince someone to downgrade from 2.0
>> to 1.7 than to upgrade to 2.0 from 1.7.
>> 
>> But this is my .02 (which is even worth less with the current exchange
>> rates).
> ...
>> Martijn
>> 
>> 

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Andrea Del Bene]

I agree with Martijn. Probably the downgrade is the best solution at the 
moment. Like Martin suggests it would be nice to investigate how 
Import-Package for OSGi are generated, but it's not a trivial task and 
we need someone with more experience with OSGi


On 14/09/22 09:22, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket 
perspective

it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right?

If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note that 
one can

easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires.

This will keep it working for most folks, yet give an upgrade path for
those that wish so. It is harder to convince someone to downgrade from 2.0
to 1.7 than to upgrade to 2.0 from 1.7.

But this is my .02 (which is even worth less with the current exchange
rates).

...

Martijn

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Martin Grigorov]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:22 AM Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket perspective
> it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right?
>

Right!
The only difference is that 1.7.x is not a JSPM module and this leads to
some warnings in Wicket's build and some more problems if an application
tries to go full JSPM.
So, it is either JSPM or OSGi at the moment.
IMO option 3) is the best but someone has to investigate how to manage
Import-Package for OSGi.


>
> If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note that one can
> easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires.
>
> This will keep it working for most folks, yet give an upgrade path for
> those that wish so. It is harder to convince someone to downgrade from 2.0
> to 1.7 than to upgrade to 2.0 from 1.7.
>
> But this is my .02 (which is even worth less with the current exchange
> rates).
>
> Martijn
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 9:15 AM Martin Grigorov 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have one concern - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6958
> >
> > Some history:
> > Some time ago I have upgraded slf4j-api from 1.7.x to
> > 2.x-alpha/beta/stable. The reason to do it was because 2.x is a JSPM
> > module.
> > SLF4J 2.x is API compatible with 1.7.x but there is a difference - 1.7.x
> > uses static binding, 2.x uses ServiceLoader. So the application should
> use
> > an SLF4J implementation for the respective API version!
> > An (non-OSGi) application can easily downgrade the used version by
> > declaring an explicit dependency to 1.7.x.
> > But!
> > WICKET-6958 has problems in OSGi environment due to the Import-Package
> > directive in the META-INF/MANIFEST file. Bnd (via maven-bundle-plugin)
> sets
> > the value to [2,3) and it seems this makes it hard for the user
> application
> > to downgrade to 1.7.x
> >
> > Here are the options I see:
> > 1) do nothing, just mark it as a known issue
> > 2) change the version back to 1.7.x
> > 3) investigate what should be done by maven-bundle-plugin to set the
> value
> > manually to [1.7,3). I expected that the issue reporter will do it but he
> > waits for us...
> >
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 2:14 PM Andrea Del Bene 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrea Del Bene.
> > > Apache Wicket committer.
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Martijn Dashorst]

IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket perspective
it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right?

If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note that one can
easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires.

This will keep it working for most folks, yet give an upgrade path for
those that wish so. It is harder to convince someone to downgrade from 2.0
to 1.7 than to upgrade to 2.0 from 1.7.

But this is my .02 (which is even worth less with the current exchange
rates).

Martijn



On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 9:15 AM Martin Grigorov 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have one concern - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6958
>
> Some history:
> Some time ago I have upgraded slf4j-api from 1.7.x to
> 2.x-alpha/beta/stable. The reason to do it was because 2.x is a JSPM
> module.
> SLF4J 2.x is API compatible with 1.7.x but there is a difference - 1.7.x
> uses static binding, 2.x uses ServiceLoader. So the application should use
> an SLF4J implementation for the respective API version!
> An (non-OSGi) application can easily downgrade the used version by
> declaring an explicit dependency to 1.7.x.
> But!
> WICKET-6958 has problems in OSGi environment due to the Import-Package
> directive in the META-INF/MANIFEST file. Bnd (via maven-bundle-plugin) sets
> the value to [2,3) and it seems this makes it hard for the user application
> to downgrade to 1.7.x
>
> Here are the options I see:
> 1) do nothing, just mark it as a known issue
> 2) change the version back to 1.7.x
> 3) investigate what should be done by maven-bundle-plugin to set the value
> manually to [1.7,3). I expected that the issue reporter will do it but he
> waits for us...
>
>
> Martin
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 2:14 PM Andrea Del Bene 
> wrote:
>
> > Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT?
> >
> > --
> > Andrea Del Bene.
> > Apache Wicket committer.
> >
>


-- 
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Martin Grigorov]

Hi,

I have one concern - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6958

Some history:
Some time ago I have upgraded slf4j-api from 1.7.x to
2.x-alpha/beta/stable. The reason to do it was because 2.x is a JSPM module.
SLF4J 2.x is API compatible with 1.7.x but there is a difference - 1.7.x
uses static binding, 2.x uses ServiceLoader. So the application should use
an SLF4J implementation for the respective API version!
An (non-OSGi) application can easily downgrade the used version by
declaring an explicit dependency to 1.7.x.
But!
WICKET-6958 has problems in OSGi environment due to the Import-Package
directive in the META-INF/MANIFEST file. Bnd (via maven-bundle-plugin) sets
the value to [2,3) and it seems this makes it hard for the user application
to downgrade to 1.7.x

Here are the options I see:
1) do nothing, just mark it as a known issue
2) change the version back to 1.7.x
3) investigate what should be done by maven-bundle-plugin to set the value
manually to [1.7,3). I expected that the issue reporter will do it but he
waits for us...


Martin

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 2:14 PM Andrea Del Bene 
wrote:

> Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT?
>
> --
> Andrea Del Bene.
> Apache Wicket committer.
>

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Maxim Solodovnik]

+1

from mobile (sorry for typos ;)


On Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 10:36 Tobias Soloschenko
 wrote:

> +1
>
> kind regards
>
> Tobias
>
> > Am 13.09.2022 um 22:19 schrieb Thomas Heigl :
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 1:14 PM Andrea Del Bene 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrea Del Bene.
> >> Apache Wicket committer.
> >>
>

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Tobias Soloschenko]

+1

kind regards

Tobias

> Am 13.09.2022 um 22:19 schrieb Thomas Heigl :
> 
> +1
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 1:14 PM Andrea Del Bene 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT?
>> 
>> --
>> Andrea Del Bene.
>> Apache Wicket committer.
>> 

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Thomas Heigl]

+1

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 1:14 PM Andrea Del Bene 
wrote:

> Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT?
>
> --
> Andrea Del Bene.
> Apache Wicket committer.
>

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Sven Meier]

+1

Sven


On 13.09.22 20:16, Martijn Dashorst wrote:

No objection from me!

Martijn


On 13 Sep 2022, at 13:14, Andrea Del Bene  wrote:

Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT?

--
Andrea Del Bene.
Apache Wicket committer.

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

[Martijn Dashorst]

No objection from me!

Martijn 

> On 13 Sep 2022, at 13:14, Andrea Del Bene  wrote:
> 
> Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT?
> 
> -- 
> Andrea Del Bene.
> Apache Wicket committer.

Time for 9.12.0?

[Andrea Del Bene]

Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT?

-- 
Andrea Del Bene.
Apache Wicket committer.