hrm. but what would happen if you run the jar through retrotranslator/weaver. it should make it compatible again... at least that way people who have 1.3 in production and do not want to rebuild the app can use 1.4 jars and so we dont have to really maintain 1.3 after the branch. at least this was the scenario i was hoping for.
-igor On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1.4 will not be a drop in replacement without a recompile anyway. > For example i noticed when i do only generics i suddenly have compile > errors at specific places because. Dont know why exactly but i guess > generics sometimes makes a method narrower in the call or something. > > Also i have now more then 1 fix that wil break api anyway. > > > > On 3/23/08, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > im not sure we should fix those things that break the api in 1.4. then > > 1.4 stops being a drop in replacement for 1.3 and we will have to do > > more 1.3 releases instead of telling people to drop in 1.4 jar... > > > > -igor > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Generics only and really simple stuff that would break api for 1.3.x > > > (like bugs that need fixing but are api breaks for 1.3.x) > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/23/08, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
