Hi Igor,
On Jul 30, 2006, at 8:34 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
one issue that we are forgetting here and that needs to be
mentioned is that
wicket 2.0 requires jdk5 while 1.x is jdk1.4. so im not sure how
viable of
an option it is to freeze the featureset of 1.3 and only add
bugfixes. a
good ch
On Monday 31 July 2006 07:27, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> This way the old branch will still be "supported".
> But none of the users should expect that the new features will be
> ported back to the old releases.
And perhaps even incubate the 1.3, in case there are strong enough interest to
keep
On 7/30/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/26/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Abdera podling has reached a point where the committers feel we're
> ready to cut a 0.1.0 "developer preview" / "developer milestone"
> release. We have +1's from all committer
On Monday 31 July 2006 07:37, Leo Simons wrote:
Thanks "mate" (I love that word) ;o)
> (eg there won't be a book coming out
> in October about "Apache Wicket 2.0", whereas a book on simply "Wicket 2.0"
> in October might or might not make sense
AFAIK, it will be "Wicket In Action" and cover both
one issue that we are forgetting here and that needs to be mentioned is that
wicket 2.0 requires jdk5 while 1.x is jdk1.4. so im not sure how viable of
an option it is to freeze the featureset of 1.3 and only add bugfixes. a
good chunk of our community cannot migrate to jdk5 and we have promised t
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 11:09:03PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Perhaps it would suffice to make it ASF policy that no official
> project should have a dependency on a incubating one (or such a
> dependency would be scoped as provided so that the user would have to
> explicitly include it).
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:25:20AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 7/27/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From the repository point of view - I don't see any reason why not. As
> >long as they are defined releases (rather than snapshots), then they
> >fit the rsync repo. +1
>
>
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 02:54:35AM +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Is [stuff] against the 'spirit of incubation', or some other guideline, rule
> or principle?
Sorry about taking this way out of context, but its a relevant question. The
back-and-forth in this thread is pretty much about a somewhat
I haven't followed the entire thread, but this sounds like what we
did in Cayenne. And it did cause some misunderstanding at times
regarding our intentions. Let's try to prevent similar
misunderstanding in the case of Wicket.
The quoted explanation seems quite reasonable to me, except that
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:52:39PM +0100, Upayavira wrote:
> Does anyone here have an idea what the shortest time is that a new
> community might be incubated (assuming no other issues)?
I think, so far, none of the new top-level projects that we have
incubated have done so in less than 6 months,
On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/30/06, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure about this, as an absolute prohibition would imply the
> 1.x stream would go into maintainance, which might be more restrictive
> than planned...
The point is that the podl
On 30/07/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 30, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Gwyn Evans wrote:
> On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - All new development comes to the Incubator. We expect no more
>> 'm
On 7/26/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Abdera podling has reached a point where the committers feel we're
ready to cut a 0.1.0 "developer preview" / "developer milestone"
release. We have +1's from all committers [1] and zero -1's.
The release candidate is available at: http:/
+1 from me for a 0.1.0 release
-Matthias
On 7/26/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Abdera podling has reached a point where the committers feel we're
ready to cut a 0.1.0 "developer preview" / "developer milestone"
release. We have +1's from all committers [1] and zero -1's.
Th
On 7/26/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Abdera podling has reached a point where the committers feel we're
ready to cut a 0.1.0 "developer preview" / "developer milestone"
release. We have +1's from all committers [1] and zero -1's.
The release candidate is available at: http:/
On Jul 30, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Gwyn Evans wrote:
On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a
release, and
> > release it on sf.net (our previous host) without br
On 7/30/06, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure about this, as an absolute prohibition would imply the
1.x stream would go into maintainance, which might be more restrictive
than planned...
The point is that the podling is either here or it's not. If new
features are being adde
On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a release, and
> > release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding it as
> > apache?
>
> "Backporting" the changes
On Monday 31 July 2006 00:58, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Legally, you may not call it Apache Wicket
It is known as Wicket and will remain to be known as Wicket.
> (if that's the name you decide on), and as a matter of policy,
> I'd frown upon such 'backporting' behavior.
Not sure what part you
On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a release, and
> release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding it as
> apache?
"Backporting" the changes to sf.net doesn't appear to me to be an
issue, since the Apache li
On 7/30/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 30, 2006, at 3:15 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html is really
> just an outline. lot of work required.
I had an itch to help with this one.
good
this one has a shape outlin
On 7/30/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey,
Looks reasonable to me: anything to improve clarity is nice.
+1 to all the JIRA issue resolutions proposed below.
+1 to those JIRA issues as well... -- justin
-
To uns
On Jul 30, 2006, at 3:15 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html is really
just an outline. lot of work required.
I had an itch to help with this one.
--
Jeremy
-
To unsubscr
Hey,
Looks reasonable to me: anything to improve clarity is nice.
+1 to all the JIRA issue resolutions proposed below.
Yoav
On 7/29/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a few more changes that i think that policy neutral (please jump in if
i am mistaken)
i'm +1to all
- robert
On 7/30/06, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure ok, I'll volunteer to have a go.
great :-)
What doc do you have in mind?
there are lots of docs which need work so hopefully you'll be able to
find something that interests you :-)
all DRAFTs need work. these are in varying states of co
Sure ok, I'll volunteer to have a go. What doc do you have in mind?
...ant
On 7/30/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the organisation's starting to improve a little which should make it
easier to collaborate. i can think of quite a few tasks many of which
are editorial and
the organisation's starting to improve a little which should make it
easier to collaborate. i can think of quite a few tasks many of which
are editorial and so don't really require a lot of specialist
knowledge.
any volunteers want to take on some documentation over the next few weeks?
- robert
27 matches
Mail list logo
