Time for 9.12.0?

Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT? -- Andrea Del Bene. Apache Wicket committer.

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

No objection from me! Martijn > On 13 Sep 2022, at 13:14, Andrea Del Bene wrote: > > Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT? > > -- > Andrea Del Bene. > Apache Wicket committer.

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

+1 Sven On 13.09.22 20:16, Martijn Dashorst wrote: No objection from me! Martijn On 13 Sep 2022, at 13:14, Andrea Del Bene wrote: Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT? -- Andrea Del Bene. Apache Wicket committer.

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

+1 On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 1:14 PM Andrea Del Bene wrote: > Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT? > > -- > Andrea Del Bene. > Apache Wicket committer. >

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

+1 kind regards Tobias > Am 13.09.2022 um 22:19 schrieb Thomas Heigl : > > +1 > >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 1:14 PM Andrea Del Bene >> wrote: >> >> Looks like we have enough material to promote a new release. WDYT? >> >> -- >> Andrea Del Bene. >> Apache Wicket committer. >>

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

+1 from mobile (sorry for typos ;) On Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 10:36 Tobias Soloschenko wrote: > +1 > > kind regards > > Tobias > > > Am 13.09.2022 um 22:19 schrieb Thomas Heigl : > > > > +1 > > > >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 1:14 PM Andrea Del Bene > >> wrote: > >> > >> Looks like we have enough ma

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

Hi, I have one concern - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6958 Some history: Some time ago I have upgraded slf4j-api from 1.7.x to 2.x-alpha/beta/stable. The reason to do it was because 2.x is a JSPM module. SLF4J 2.x is API compatible with 1.7.x but there is a difference - 1.7.x uses

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket perspective it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right? If that is the case, I suggest we fall back to 1.7.x, and note that one can easily upgrade to 2.0.0 without issue if someone so desires. This will keep it working f

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:22 AM Martijn Dashorst < martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > IIUC sfl4j 2.0.0 API is the same as 1.7.x API, so from a Wicket perspective > it doesn't matter if we ship with 2.0.0 or 1.7.x, right? > Right! The only difference is that 1.7.x is not a JSPM module and this

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

I agree with Martijn. Probably the downgrade is the best solution at the moment. Like Martin suggests it would be nice to investigate how Import-Package for OSGi are generated, but it's not a trivial task and we need someone with more experience with OSGi On 14/09/22 09:22, Martijn Dashorst wr

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

I can help w/ the OSGi import package. Should just be a simple override in the bundle plugin config. > On Sep 15, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Andrea Del Bene wrote: > > I agree with Martijn. Probably the downgrade is the best solution at the > moment. Like Martin suggests it would be nice to investigate

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

I think I've lost track about this activity...what do we still miss to proceed with the new release? Thank you. On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 6:19 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote: > I can help w/ the OSGi import package. Should just be a simple override in > the bundle plugin config. > > > On Sep 15, 2022, at

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

Nothing has changed. I am fine to proceed with the release. On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 2:20 PM Andrea Del Bene wrote: > I think I've lost track about this activity...what do we still miss to > proceed with the new release? > Thank you. > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 6:19 PM Matt Pavlovich wrote: > >

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

I got pulled off onto other tasks. I will have time to get the PR out this weekend. Thanks, Matt Pavlovich > On Sep 29, 2022, at 6:19 AM, Andrea Del Bene wrote: > > I think I've lost track about this activity...what do we still miss to > proceed with the new release? > Thank you. > > On Fri,

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

Thank you Matt! On 29/09/22 16:43, Matt Pavlovich wrote: I got pulled off onto other tasks. I will have time to get the PR out this weekend. Thanks, Matt Pavlovich On Sep 29, 2022, at 6:19 AM, Andrea Del Bene wrote: I think I've lost track about this activity...what do we still miss to pro

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

Update — draft PR here: https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/540 This PR works for wicket-util and wicket-request modules right now. At issue is the use of enforcer plugin to limit configurations per-execution. maven-bundle-plugin runs at various pha

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

PR #540 is ready for review. I completed updates for the wicket modules that we use and can spot check. Note— It would be contract-breaking to ship wicket-9.x w/ slf4j 2.0 without this change in place, so next up it’d be good to back-port this to the wicket-9.x branch and get some testing under

Re: Time for 9.12.0?

I think we are ready to proceed with the release. To port WICKET-6999 I've added osgi configuration also to experimental modules modules for HTTP2: https://github.com/apache/wicket/commit/3054cb6249dfdc61efa5ded2f419359edf847224 It should be ok, just let me know if I did something wrong. On Fri,