Sounds reasonable. Breaking this on 1.2 would cause too much trouble to
the users.
So, +1 for 2.0
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
+1 with Jonathan.
On 1/17/06, *Jonathan Locke* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
i can understand this predicament and this was my first suggestion:
that we release 1.2 as-is and then quickly release a 2.0 with these
constructor changes before focusing on a longer-term 2.1... i think
your request is a reasonable one and since you object, i'd like to
change my vote to match yours.
-1 for 1.2
+1 for 2.0 (on a very quick release cycle after 1.2)
--
Janne Hietamäki
Cemron Ltd
http://www.cemron.com/
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-develop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
