first of all this has nothing to do with a "power play". it has to do with a simple fact that betas are meant to be stable releases that users can develop against without worrying much about us pulling stuff from under them.
Threatening to veto is power play. Also, I don't agree with your definition of beta being non-breaking. You are in fact contradicting most of your own behavior in the project.
from the list i gather there is a large number of users that are waiting for a beta before they start upgrading their projects for the above reason.
Not many oppose the model change so far though. It should be quite an easy change for most occasions really. I think you and Al are making it larger than it really is.
second of all, yes i was the advocate. i was trying to find a way to solve the problems everyone were complaining about. i found away, i proposed it, we had a discussion and a vote. we all voted +1. now that i had a chance to extensively use the api i dont think it was worth it and so i started the discussion again. it will take another vote where everyone votes to resolve this. i have two large projects on trunk, so i think i am affected more then others by this rollback with regards to hours of work. so take that back.
Don't underestimate the amount of work that goes into rewriting and checking half a book of code example, ALL the wicket-stuff projects I converted, MOST of the other wicket projects I converted. We can all feel the pain here, and it is great that at least we tried to come up with the best solution and worked hard on trying to realize it. But we also have to admit that this whole situation is pretty amateuristic, and is not something we should repeat in the future. The fact that the rest of the team +1-ed on it, makes us all responsible yes. But +1 a proposal is something else than actively advocating it and I currently feel kind of had to be slapped back for giving my support in the past. Eelco
