i assigned a bunch of stuff to 1.3.3 that i think would be nice to get
done for that release. if we have time great, if not it will have to
go to 1.3.4.

i have also moved a bunch of stuff to 1.5-M1 (whatever that version
will be called).

i think we should move everything from 1.4-M1 to 1.5-M1 as 1.4 will
now be generics only. anyone objects to me doing this?

-igor


On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we should all go through the open issues and put whatever we think we
>  need to fix for 1.3.3 into that version and remove things from there
>  that we dont think we need to fix
>
>  -igor
>
>
>
>
>  On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > i would say lets do it next sunday the 30th. that will give us a week
>  >  to fix whatever we need to.
>  >
>  >  -igor
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>  >  > 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
>  >  >  > >  > >
>  >  >  > >  >
>  >  >  > >
>  >  >  >
>  >  >
>  >
>

Reply via email to