+1 (binding)

-Matej

On 3/15/07, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I totally agree. I have also started a release wiki page where I try to
collect the information about the legals we have been going through and
solved.

http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Wicket+1.3.0+incubating+checkpoint+1

Frank

On 3/15/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.xbranch.
> > >                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
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to