Yeah, that would mean supporting 1.2 and 1.3 as branches. 2.0 would be HEAD. For us it would be way less work if we'd move to 1.2 directly. But that would probably be a bummer for people that don't want to make the move to JDK 5, but who do want to take advantage of the constructor change.
Eelco On 2/16/06, Philip A. Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eelco Hillenius wrote: > > <SNIP> > > Only thing for us is that we have to support both 1.2 and 1.3. > > Does that mean supporting 3 branches; 1.2, 1.3 and eventually 2.0? Or > did you mean support 1.2 and 1.3 until 2.0 comes out; then supporting > 1.3 and 2.0? > > Just curious on how much I should pity the committers. > -- > Philip A. Chapman > > Desktop and Web Application Development: > Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL > Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP > > > ------------------------------------------------------- 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-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
