I agree with the sentiment, and I think a 1.3 release has more priority than 2.0, but we can push out 2.0 as well... it's a beta after all.
Eelco On 12/8/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hmm my thing is the other way around 2.0 i dont know (we need to do more there i guess and there are some open endings) 1.3 can be released now as beta if you ask me. We backported enough or are people also wanting other stuff? We can release 1.3 much earlier as 2.0 if you ask me. johan On 12/8/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i think we can release an alpha1 of 2.0 > > i dont know about 1.3 > > we need to create a roadmap for 1.3 on the wiki and mark what features are > already in and what are not > > -igor > > > On 12/7/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > All, > > > > Woudn't it be great if we could release our current progress as a > > development build into the wild, and validate our progress on > > licensing issues? > > > > I think we could best address this by performing a milestone release, > > which doesn't promise API stability, or bug-free operation, but will > > be clear of licensing issues. This way we will be able to get our > > licensing and packaging act together long before we actually go > > beta/rc on our releases. > > > > I am not sure where we stand with both 2.0 and 1.3 feature/bug wise, > > but I would like to get the licensing issues done. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Martijn > > > > -- > > <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket";>Vote</a> > > for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket > > ">Wicket</a> > > at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best Stuff in > > the World!</a> > > > >
