Nice proposal. Seems like a no-brainer. More Dutchies at apache is always a good thing ;)
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:54:15PM +0100, Upayavira wrote: > === Versions === > > Wicket currently has three versions of their code base, 1.2 (the current > release), 1.3 (planned) and 2.0 (unreleased). > > We would like to keep all three versions on the same infrastructure, and > would thus like to bring all three versions over to Apache. Doesn't sound like a problem. > This would involve the need to be able to make releases of 1.2 and 1.3 > during incubation, as they have a current user base to serve that is > already using the product. > > The exact manner of producing these releases would need to be clearly > understood by the Wicket team before incubation can start. I'd suggest they read the documentation then :) http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases As far as the incubator is concerned, the neccessity to understand and follow rules & policies for releases is when a release is made, not before incubation starts... -- > === Package Naming === > > Wicket Java code uses the wicket.* package hierarchy. At this point, we > would propose that code in versions 1.2 and 1.3 would switch to ASF > servers, but maintain the wicket.* namespace, but code in 2.0 would > switch to an org.apache.wicket.* namespace. No issue there. -- > * Chris Turner is from the UK and works as an independent consultant. > He does not intend to move with us to Apache. What does that mean? Does he not think wicket should move to apache? Does he not want to sign a CLA? Is there consensus within wicket on this move or isn't there? LSD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
