we are doing that, but its not a public release -igor
On 3/14/07, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 and I still think we should do a 1.3 release to IPMC "now" Frank On 3/15/07, Al Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's been a lot of comment and discussion lately about the future > direction of Wicket, and the trunk/2.0 branch in particular. > > We've done some hard thinking and we now have a roadmap for the future. > > When What > ==== ==== > Now Backport the Model refactor and other remaining non-JDK-5 > features from 2.0 to the 1.3.x branch. > Soon Release a 1.3.0-beta to the community. > Soon Release a 1.3.0-rc1. [2, 3, etc. if required] > > A bit later Release a 1.3.0 final. > Fork a 1.4.x branch from the 1.3.0 release. > Apply generics and other JDK-5 features to 1.4.x branch. > This will make 1.4.x look just like 2.0, but with the same > constructor/add logic as 1.2.x/1.3.x currently have. > > "now" ~= right now. > "soon" ~= within a couple of weeks. > "A bit later" ~= within a month or so. > > We will discontinue support for 2.0 once we have branched 1.4.x and > added generics support into it, at which point the 2.0 branch will be > renamed in subversion and left to stagnate. > > As already thrashed out in various discussions, this will achieve the > following: > > - Provide a migration path for 2.0 users within a month or so, so they > are not left high and dry. 1.4.x will be basically the same as 2.0 > currently is, only with the constructor change backed out. > > - Give us two branches that will be very similar apart from JDK 5 > features, and thus make it easy to back-port fixes/features from > the 1.4 branch to the 1.3 branch. > > - Give us a 1.3.0 beta that is feature-complete, and thus make > upgrading from beta >> RC >> final releases trivial. > > Best regards, > > Al >
