Hey, Let's talk with numbers, well dates.
1.5.0 is announced at Sep 7 2011. 6.0.0 is announced at Sep 5 2012. In my first mail in this thread I said "feature complete, so let's release a milestone/rc". Summer holidays come so I think the final release won't be in the next month or two. It took 8 months for 1.5 (RC1 - Jan 22 2011) and 5 months for 6.0 (beta1 - Mar 26 2012) to be in RC stage. There is a difference than 1.5/6.0 - in 7.0 there are no big refactorings which will make the migration and testing hard for apps coming from 6.x. Additionally I can say that the migration guide<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Migration+to+Wicket+7.0> has never been so complete. So a major release has 2 years life. Actually even more because 1.5.x will be supported until 7.0.3/4 before be moved to security maintenance mode. At least this has been the case with the previous releases. Additionally I think it is OK to be supported even more if a core developer volunteers to do this, because he has a client or another reason. If Sven (or anyone else who can make a release) wants to add a fix to 1.3.x branch and release it then all is fine. In summary - no, there are no new big features in Wicket 7. There are minor API improvements/breaks here and there, and requirements for Java 7 and Servlet 3.0. But I think we should keep our pace and release a new major release once per year. Postponing 7.0 will only increase the changes in the APIs and make the migration more painful for our users. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Sebastien <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am in the same case where my customer also did not yet migrate to wicket > 6... So, in my user point of view, I agree with Sven, I think that one > major release by year is enough... > Sure, It does not prevent to start working on the next feature(s) and > release some betas once one of these is implemented... > > My 2cts, > Sebastien. > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > if we continue to release a major version every 9 months, we will either > > have to support more branches or drop support for an old version every 9 > > months. > > For my type of customers this scenario sounds scary. Some of them just > > managed to migrate to Wicket 6 :(. > > > > So do we really want to publish a new release so soon? Is there something > > important (already) in Wicket 7 that people are waiting for? > > > > Best regards > > Sven > > > > > > > > On 06/26/2013 01:20 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I'd like to discuss where we are with Wicket 7 and what to do next. > >> > >> At the moment there are just > >> 3<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/issues/?jql=project%20%** > >> 3D%20WICKET%20AND%**20fixVersion%20%3D%20%227.0.0%** > >> 22%20AND%20status%20in%20(**Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%** > >> 2C%20Reopened)%20ORDER%20BY%**20created%20DESC%2C%20summary%**20ASC< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20WICKET%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%227.0.0%22%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20ORDER%20BY%20created%20DESC%2C%20summary%20ASC > > > >> > > >> tickets > >> with "Fix Version" 7.0.0. > >> > >> One <https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/WICKET-5172< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5172>> > >> of them is about > >> adding a link for the javadoc at http://wicket.apache.org. Trivial. > >> > >> Another <https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/WICKET-4951< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-4951>> > >> is about > >> CDI-1.1. John Sarman is helping here. Thanks! > >> > >> And the last <https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/WICKET-5184< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5184>> > >> one is > >> about the signature of AbstractTree/Model.ofSet(). I don't see a good > >> solution here, but I have provided a workaround. > >> > >> > >> In the roadmap page there is also: > >> > >> Refactor checkgroup/radiogroup to make them non > >> components<https://cwiki.**apache.org/confluence/display/** > >> WICKET/Wicket+7.0+Roadmap#**Wicket7.0Roadmap-**Refactorcheckgroup%** > >> 2Fradiogrouptomakethemnoncompo**nents< > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Wicket+7.0+Roadmap#Wicket7.0Roadmap-Refactorcheckgroup%2Fradiogrouptomakethemnoncomponents > > > >> .> > >> - > >> @Igor: do you want to work yourself on this ? Otherwise please give more > >> details how you imagine the new way. > >> > >> Make CSS class strings used in the framework > >> configurable<https://cwiki.**apache.org/confluence/display/** > >> WICKET/Wicket+7.0+Roadmap#**Wicket7.0Roadmap-** > >> Makecssclassstringsusedinthefr**ameworkconfigurable< > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Wicket+7.0+Roadmap#Wicket7.0Roadmap-Makecssclassstringsusedintheframeworkconfigurable > > > >> > > >> - > >> this one is clear. If there are no objections then I'll pick it soon > >> (unless someone else does it before me). > >> > >> I'm going to investigate few tickets about bookmarkable mappers > >> (MountMapper, MountedMapper, PackageMapper and ResourceMapper) and their > >> handling of named parameters in the path/segments. > >> > >> Unless someone has more ideas what can be improved for Wicket 7 I think > we > >> are pretty close to be "feature complete" and we can release a milestone > >> or > >> release candidate. > >> > >> I'd like to thank Cedric Gatay, Michael Mossman, Andrea Del Bene and > John > >> Sarman for their help so far! > >> > >> > > >
