incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gwyn Evans" <gwyn.ev...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Ratify the release of Apache Wicket 1.3.0-incubating-alpha
Date Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:38:12 GMT
Missed out linking to this roadmap vote - http://snipurl.com/1en4v
/Gwyn

On 31/03/07, Gwyn Evans <gwyn.evans@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/03/07, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message