Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Wicket 6.14.0 - second try

2014-02-14 Thread Igor Vaynberg
+1 -igor On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Jonas wrote: > [X] Yes, release Apache Wicket 6.14.0 (try 2) > (non binding) > > Tested our main webapp, plus verified the jira tracks I've filed > (WICKET-5469, WICKET-5493) > > cheers, > Jonas > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Martijn Dashorst < >

Re: Markup driven component tree

2014-02-14 Thread Igor Vaynberg
i am reworking the implementation a bit to properly support borders and repeaters by delegating to components...will check it in when i have it working... -igor On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Wicket 6.14.0 - second try

2014-02-14 Thread Jonas
[X] Yes, release Apache Wicket 6.14.0 (try 2) (non binding) Tested our main webapp, plus verified the jira tracks I've filed (WICKET-5469, WICKET-5493) cheers, Jonas On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Martijn Dashorst < martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is a vote to release Apache Wicket

Re: Markup driven component tree

2014-02-14 Thread Martin Grigorov
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Martin Grigorov > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Igor Vaynberg >wrote: > > > > > i just pushed my new idea into sandbox/component-queueing-2 > > > > > > the way this works now is instead of

[VOTE] Release Apache Wicket 6.14.0 - second try

2014-02-14 Thread Martijn Dashorst
This is a vote to release Apache Wicket 6.14.0 - try 2 This updated release includes a true fix for 5499, and a better error log in wicket-ajax.js when binding fails, and a minor improvement for some javadoc. Please download the source distributions found in our staging area linked below. I have

Re: [VOTE] Release wicket 6.14.0

2014-02-14 Thread Martijn Dashorst
This vote failed. I have re-rolled the release, see the new vote thread... Martijn On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > This vote is negative anyway because of the problem with the bound session > after submitting statelessform. > > Now the question is whether to improve th