The difference is that we won't be doing API breaking stuff when the final is released.
RC API changes should go through a vote first. At least this is the old agreement for 1.2 and older. So I agree with Eelco that we should go through the list of issues and identify which ones are API breaking and which ones can go into the next (1.4/1.5/2.0?) release. Martijn On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i think there are no really major showstoppers at the moment. (as far as i > know) > And whats the difference for you if you just take beta5 now and use that in > your production > or if we already called that final? It will be the same kind of code. > There isn't anything different then the label we give it.. > > What is importand for you is do all your pages work are you seeing > unexpected features? > > johan > > > > On 10/21/07, Evan Chooly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > FWIW, i'd love to start seeing RCs. We're shooting for a late november > > release and I'd *really* like to see something final soon. It makes me a > > little nervous to be still in beta at this point in our release > > cycle. I'm > > not complaining, really. I know you guys are busy and are working on this > > and other things. Just trying to put in my 2 cents in favor of cutting a > > final release in the absence of any major show stoppers. > > > > On 10/20/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > i am not aware of any "show-stopping" bugs, so i am ok if the next > > > release is an RC1. > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > alright, then we should somehow make it official. > > > > also to communicate to "potential" users that the final release is > > > getting > > > > closer. > > > > > > > > anyway, what do the others think? (weekends are a bad time to have a > > > lively > > > > discussion ;) ) > > > > > > > > Gerolf > > > > > > > > On 10/20/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > i am already in ff mode. except optimalisations like we did this few > > > > > days. optimisations should always be right after major changes and > > > > > freezzz > > > > > > > > > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 10/20/07, dtoffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4" that > > my > > > > > boss > > > > > > > don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking changes" > > is > > > > > enough, > > > > > > > and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could be > > > > > released > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > 1.3.01 for example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you daniel, that's exactly what i meant. even though there > > > already > > > > > > people using the betas to build great applications, > > > > > > a final release could allow even more folks to use wicket and thus > > a > > > > > higher > > > > > > adoption and penetration of the market. > > > > > > > > > > > > and as johan said: > > > > > > > I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for > > using > > > the > > > > > > current build... > > > > > > > > > > > > so how about the feature freeze and 2-3 RCs? > > > > > > bugs can be fixed for 1.3.1 and api breaks go directly into TNG. > > > > > > > > > > > > let's hop on the 1.4-train ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > Gerolf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
