[X] - YES

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>  I would like to get your opinion on an idea regarding the Wicket Stuff
> project(s).  As you are familiar with, Wicket Stuff is where anyone can
> create anything related to Wicket, small or large.  One problem that new
> users of Wicket (and us "old" users) come across is that there is a lot of
> stuff in there, and not all of it is well maintained, and there aren't
> specific releases of many of the projects.  So, you have to build it
> yourself and figure out which version matches which Wicket version, etc...
>  What I would like to know is if everyone thinks it would be good to have a
> subset of WS projects that are structured in a way that they are always in
> sync with the Wicket versions.  IOW, there would be two branches - 1.3.X
> and
> 1.4 (trunk), just like Wicket has.  There would be a parent module and all
> of the modules that wanted to participate would be structured under it.
> They would all release in sync with Wicket.  For instance, when Wicket
> releases 1.4-RC2, we would cut a release of this wicket-stuff-structured
> (bad name) and all of the projects under it at 1.4-RC2.  I haven't yet
> figured out how interim releases would work (new features are added to a WS
> project and it wants to cut a release between wicket releases) or if that
> matters.
>  This would not have to effect all WS projects - someone could continue to
> add projects to WS just like they do today.  This would simply create a
> sub-tree of projects that are in the structured / scheduled release area.
> For those that don't want to be part of that structure, they could continue
> operating as they do today.
> So, here's the vote:
> [ ] - NO!  We should leave Wicket Stuff like it is - a free-for-all with no
> structure
> [ ] - YES - I would like to see at least the most used Wicket Stuff
> projects
> structured so that they mirror Wicket, and a release is produced for each
> Wicket release.
> [ ] - Maybe - I have a better idea (perfect!)
> Also - please add the following:
> 1 - Would you be interested in helping to maintain such a thing. (If we had
> two or three of the owners of the larger projects on board, I don't think
> it
> would be too hard to keep the codebase of this in sync with Wicket core.)
> 2 - What projects do you own (and by your vote we'll see if you want those
> projects to be included in this restructuring).
> --
> Jeremy Thomerson
> http://www.wickettraining.com

Reply via email to