incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martijn Dashorst" <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Date Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:04:39 GMT
BTW Thanks everyone for the support!

On the release note:

We are very committed to support our community even when we're
undergoing incubation. This would typically mean that we might need to
release Wicket versions. As releases marked as incubated will probably
raise an eyebrow or two, what are our options?

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? Does this need to go through the PMC as well?

Especially our 1.2/1.3 product versions will probably need some form
of support, and I think that during our incubation, we will need to
make a Wicket 1.2.3 release available. Depending on the speed of our
incubation, Wicket 1.3 will see the light as well before graduation.
Mainly our concerns are how to proceed with those releases: bug fix
releases and new minor releases.

For those without intimate WIcket knowledge, Wicket 2.0 will be our
next major release, and will break backwards compatiblity on a massive
scale. A rename of the packages to the org.apache.wicket will be part
of that release. To save our current users that have systems in
production based on our 1.2 version, we would like to keep the current
API (which starts with package wicket). 1.3 will be a support release
for those users, with backports from some functionality taken from the
2.0 branch. Basically we have forked the project.

Martijn

On 7/27/06, Leo Simons <mail@leosimons.com> wrote:
> Nice proposal. Seems like a no-brainer. More Dutchies at apache is
> always a good thing ;)
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:54:15PM +0100, Upayavira wrote:
> > === Versions ===
> >
> > Wicket currently has three versions of their code base, 1.2 (the current
> > release), 1.3 (planned) and 2.0 (unreleased).
> >
> > We would like to keep all three versions on the same infrastructure, and
> > would thus like to bring all three versions over to Apache.
>
> Doesn't sound like a problem.
>
> > This would involve the need to be able to make releases of 1.2 and 1.3
> > during incubation, as they have a current user base to serve that is
> > already using the product.
> >
> > The exact manner of producing these releases would need to be clearly
> > understood by the Wicket team before incubation can start.
>
> I'd suggest they read the documentation then :)
>
>    http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
>
> As far as the incubator is concerned, the neccessity to understand and
> follow rules & policies for releases is when a release is made, not
> before incubation starts...
>
> --
>
> > === Package Naming ===
> >
> > Wicket Java code uses the wicket.* package hierarchy. At this point, we
> > would propose that code in versions 1.2 and 1.3 would switch to ASF
> > servers, but maintain the wicket.* namespace, but code in 2.0 would
> > switch to an org.apache.wicket.* namespace.
>
> No issue there.
>
> --
>
> >  * Chris Turner is from the UK and works as an independent consultant.
> > He does not intend to move with us to Apache.
>
> What does that mean? Does he not think wicket should move to apache? Does
> he not want to sign a CLA? Is there consensus within wicket on this move
> or isn't there?
>
> LSD
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Download Wicket 1.2.1 now! Embed Wicket components in your portals!
-- http://wicketframework.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message