that sounds fine, but when are we planning for 1.3.3? next week sunday evening as a cut off?
johan On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ok, can we at least wait for 1.3.3 and kill most of the annoyances in that > one > > -igor > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > no > > not first WAIT for 1.3.4 and then start working on 1.4 > > that a serialized threading model. That is horrible > > We need to move on. We are standing still now for weeks. > > > > I dont mind having a trunk and 1 branch for fixes > > thats just fine i can cope with that. > > > > So i can work on 1.3.4 and 1.4 at the same time. > > And then we can pretty much release 1.3.4 and 1.4 at the same time > > > > johan > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > yes, i thought the idea was to first release 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 if > > > needed, and then branch. if we branch now, all those bug fixes in > jira > > > hava to be applied to two branches. > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Martijn Dashorst > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The problem is that we then have to maintain 2 branches, which > sucks. > > > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/22/08, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > thats my idea also, > > > > > we can start (if it was me) now with the 1.4 (thats then trunk) > > > > > and have a branch 1.3. > > > > > > > > > > So that we can work on the bugs and make a fully java 5 1.4version > > > (and fix > > > > > bugs that are api breaks if we really dont want those api > breaks in > > > 1.3) > > > > > > > > > > johan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Timo Rantalaiho < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Philip A. Chapman wrote: > > > > > > > against 2.0. So far, I've fought off the urge to convert > to 1.3simply > > > > > > > because it doesn't make sense to rewrite for 1.3, then > again for > > > 1.4. > > > > > > > Also, these projects make *heavy* use of generics and it > would > > > be a > > > > > > > terrible pain to re-write them without. I'd rather go > straight > > > to the > > > > > > > generics version. Quit punishing us 2.0 early adopters > already. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an important consideration, but another minority that > > > > > > should be considered are those that remain stuck with Java > > > > > > 1.4 for a while more. > > > > > > > > > > > > To strike a balance wihout having to apply fixes to several > > > > > > branches, it might be a good idea to fix the most pressing > > > > > > remaining 1.3 issues in 1.3.3 (and perhaps 1.3.4 if needed), > > > > > > and after that do the 1.4 == 1.3 + generics release and drop > > > > > > 1.3 (and Java 1.4) support as voted. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Timo > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Timo Rantalaiho > > > > > > Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst > > > > Apache Wicket 1.3.2 is released > > > > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.2 > > > > > > > > > >
