On 11/5/07, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, I might have overlooked the *or* part with implicates that empty
element shorthand should not be used for non-empty elements.
Still this leaves us with 3 options.
a) ignore things silently and then support lot of weird bugreport of
user
Even so, it's better to have a RC-2 than Beta-6 :) (beta5 - rc1)
The community trusts more on release candidates than betas. :D
On Nov 5, 2007 10:51 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
really, do you think?
i am pretty confident that rc1 can be promoted to GA :)
johan
On
i find this idea nice, too
Regards,
Korbinian
PS: if the cost of the domain is an issue, then dump me an email and ill
pay these bucks - 10 euro / year is not an issue regarding a great piece
of software IMHO...
Bruno Borges schrieb:
I'd like to suggest to turn wicketframework.org into a
Bruno Borges wrote:
I'd like to suggest to turn wicketframework.org into a front door for all
kind of Wicket information. Link to Wicket Stuff, tutorials, mailing list,
Apache's website, etc.
With all respect, I completely disagree with this suggestion. ;-)
We most certainly do not want to
wicketframework.org would not provide useful information but links to the
real websites... like opencompositing.org does :)
On Nov 5, 2007 3:58 PM, Al Maw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Borges wrote:
I'd like to suggest to turn wicketframework.org into a front door for
all
kind of Wicket
+0 (I don't have the time to test the release, but don't want to hold it back).
The release does have your signature, so that's cool (just need to
verify you are actually you).
Martijn
On 11/4/07, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I have uploaded the artifacts to my p.a.o account.
I'll take a quick look (it's in my best interest too)
Martijn
On 11/5/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/4/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/28/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Makes sense. And I see it works now perfectly. Thanks!
I've taken some time to test the release, but I get the following test
failure on OS X, Java 4:
[surefire] Running org.apache.wicket.markup.html.image.ImageTest
[surefire] Tests run: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 0.037
sec FAILURE !!
So that would be a -1?
Martijn
On 11/5/07,
Hmm, thats weird. I have built on linux and as you know the
release.shrequires a mvn and mvn4 (
1.4). Så it should have been build and tested using the correct jre's.
Can anyone shed some light on this failing test? I can't (apparantly)
reproduce it.
Frank
On Nov 5, 2007 10:49 PM, Martijn
This fixes the build on my machine.
Martijn
On 11/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jcompagner
Date: Mon Nov 5 14:41:00 2007
New Revision: 592171
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=592171view=rev
Log:
If the package resource was already loaded for the default
Ok sounds good. I think we should rebuild the release then. The problem is
just that I can't do it until Wednesday.
Johan can I get you to commit that thing to the release branch as well?
(under releases)
Frank
On Nov 5, 2007 11:47 PM, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This fixes the
On 11/5/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan has fixed the code and the tests. However, he assured me that
the test failure shouldn't cause problems in application code.
I'm changing my vote to -1. I think shipping a release candidate with
a test failure gives the wrong
12 matches
Mail list logo
