Not needed anymore; I did that myself two days ago. 1.2.x can be ditched.
Eelco
On 8/30/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1, but who is going to merge those commits Eelco *rightfully* did in 1.2.x?
>
> Martijn
>
> On 8/30/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > wicket-1
I'll do it tonight. Then we can get that 1.2.x closed for now.So please don't commit anything more to 1.2.x. FrankOn 8/31/06, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1, but who is going to merge those commits Eelco *rightfully* did in 1.2.x?MartijnOn 8/30/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+1, but who is going to merge those commits Eelco *rightfully* did in 1.2.x?
Martijn
On 8/30/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wicket-1.2.2 is pretty much feature complete, and its time to concentrate on
> wicket-1.3
>
> working on 1.3 means committing to wicket-1.x but if we do that
+1
On 29/08/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wicket-1.2.2 is pretty much feature complete, and its time to concentrate on
> wicket-1.3
>
> working on 1.3 means committing to wicket-1.x but if we do that now it means
> we have to branch wicket and have
> wicket-1.x <-- head for 1.3
>
+1On 8/30/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/29/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> wicket-1.2.2 is pretty much feature complete, and its time to concentrate on> wicket-1.3>
> working on 1.3 means committing to wicket-1.x but if we do that now it means> we have to branch
On 8/29/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wicket-1.2.2 is pretty much feature complete, and its time to concentrate on
> wicket-1.3
>
> working on 1.3 means committing to wicket-1.x but if we do that now it means
> we have to branch wicket and have
> wicket-1.x <-- head for 1.3
> wicke
yeah just wait a week and see where we end before starting to do things in 3 branches.johanOn 8/30/06, Igor Vaynberg <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:wicket-1.2.2 is pretty much feature complete, and its time to concentrate on
wicket-1.3working on 1.3 means committing to wicket-1.x but if we do that now