2.0 could be the package rename for instance. It's just a number, no big deal to me.
Eelco On 3/7/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Also, I think if we get rid of 2.0, we should never reuse that > > version number to avoid any confusion. > > hmm don't know about that. > That would be a bit strange > But if we now do simple revolution that 2.0 will be not there for a long > time > (1.3 ->1.4 ) > > And maybe what was 3.0 would be now 2.0 > > johan > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-user mailing list > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
