Well, my view would be that I'd like to keep the 1.2.x stream as wicket-1.2.x, whereas I'd be happy enough for the 1.3 stream to be wicket-incubating-1.3*. We'd expect the users to check the changes from 1.2 to 1.3, so having the "incubating" there (and explained in the release not) seems fine to me.
As for 2.0, we may well want to release wicket-incubating-2.0-RCx or similar, but I'd have hoped that we'd be out and able to do apache-wicket-2.0 by the time we finalise 2.0. (Anyone any idea what sort of timescales we might be expecting, by the way). /Gwyn On 27/07/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> imho, i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then > wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. to me incubating says "not ready for > production use". it might mean something different in the apache context > but > we cant expect all our existing users or those who stumble upon wicket for > the first time to enlighten themselves. > > so i would rather release on our existing home at sf.net Yes i would also rather see a normal wicket-1.2.2.jar when we release an update to 1.2.x then a incubator name in it. 1.2.2 is a finished release and incubator doesn't say finished to me and that i guess goes for a lot of people. So i am +1 for option 2. And for 2.0 we should then really wait for getting out of incubator. Because the same rules apply to me. I am not pro for a final release with incubator in the name. johan
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
