We are in the process of smoke testing 2.0.1. We expect for it to be released in the next day or so.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:18 AM, David <david.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > The subject of roadmap ... when will we see a 2.0.1 ? We currently > need to run with a patch gwt-servlet) due to a classloading issue > which is now in fixed state in the issue database. > > Moving to a Wave would be great! I'm always waving alone :-S... maybe > I can then finally grasp why it is supposed to be so great. > > David > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Sami Jaber <sami.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I'm agree with Thomas. RegExp integration should have been discussed in > >> the list. It is landing into the trunk from nowhere for us... > > > > I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that we were switching to a different > > version control system -- and this is the first example of the sorts of > > hiccups we thought could happen. A Googler, a GWT user but who is not on > the > > GWT team proper, has been working on this as a potential contribution, > and > > submitted this patch for a code review. We accidentally approved it for > > commit rather than just giving some positive feedback on the code review. > > Thus, a work in progress got dumped on svn. > > We're still working out what sort of approval process makes sense for > these > > sorts of contributions, but for a large change like this involving new > API > > surface area, we definitely do want and need open, public discussion. > > > >> > >> Since the 2.0 release, I feel that there is less interaction with the > >> contrib list (btw what have been decided for the roadmap ?) and what we > are > >> supposed to see in the coming releases. > > > > I think more than anything, you're seeing the effects of a lot of us > being > > tired from the GWT 2.0 push. An updated roadmap is still forthcoming, but > I > > can summarize a lot of the ad hoc design discussions starting to take > place > > like this: we need to fill a lot of gaps in the libraries, especially > > widgets and "app framewpork" sorts of library code. GWT is powerful at > > present, but it doesn't make it especially easy to create traditional > > business apps quickly. We'd like to change that. > > > >> > >> We can understand that you prefer to use internal waves/lists but please > >> let's not forget the "openess" nature of GWT that contribute to make > this > >> framework so popular > > > > It's true that Wave is fantastic for design docs, and it's hard not to > want > > to use that instead of email. Maybe the right answer is to get everyone > on > > this list to move to Wave :-) > > > > -- > > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > -- Miguel -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
