Missed out linking to this roadmap vote - http://snipurl.com/1en4v /Gwyn
On 31/03/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 31/03/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 30 March 2007 17:45, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > > We consider this release to be for resolving legal issues only, and > > will not make it available to the general public. The reasoning behind > > this is that we are still working on some major changes that need time > > to mature in these weeks. These changes are a direct result of the > > decision by the Wicket community to discontinue development on trunk > > (a full discussion can be found here [3]). As such we discourage our > > users to use this release, because it will not give them a stable > > platform to work with. > > I think the Incubator needs to know a bit more background around the Wicket > struggles. > > 1. When Wicket came to Incubator, I got the idea that 1.x was for bug fixes > and 2.0 is the new incompatible trunk for development at ASF. Not quite - the plans were for 1.2.x to be the bug-fixes, 1.3 to be an Apache release as wicket.* and 2.0 to be the Apache release as org.apache.wicket.* > 2. The 2.0 development is hitting major resistence, for more factors than just > change of package names to org.apache.wicket. That's misleading - the change of package names to org.apache.wicket.* isn't an issue at all - What's been discussed is the wisdom of carrying on with the single feature that effectively means that there would be two, very dissimilar streams of development. > > 3. 2.0 development is sort of cancelled, and work is starting to back port > most features in 2.0 to the 1.x lineage. > > Now, what is happening to the org.apache.wicket naming requirement of classes? See here[1] for the vote to apply the rename to the 1.3 stream, which looks to happen shortly. > This release request is still using "package wicket.*". How do you plan to > handle this, to satisfy both the Incubator namespace requirement and users > being upset over incompatibilities? For the first point, the 1.3 release was always due to be a wicket.* release, so we understood that using the wicket.* namespace wasn't a show-stopper - as for the second, this 1.3 release is more to validate the legal release aspects rather than a release to end-users, so that, combined with notes such as this[2] and the fact that the mean that it shouldn't be a problem. Note that the release is a 1.2 -> 1.3 change, with all that normally implies, rather than an incremental 1.n.m release, where we would attempt to keep drop-in compatability. /Gwyn [1] http://snipurl.com/1en4c [2] http://snipurl.com/1en4g -- Download Wicket 1.2.5 now! - http://wicketframework.org
-- Download Wicket 1.2.5 now! - http://wicketframework.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
