Johan Compagner wrote:
The feeling i get from the mail below is that incubator releases
are not really meant for all end users.. You really only want
the users that really knows that it is an incubator release.
But for me wicket-2.0 will be a full release a real release that
every user of
On 8/3/06, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
...BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor...
...We welcome you. There can never be enough mentors.
ok, so feel free to add my name to the list!
-Bertrand
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On 8/3/06, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
...BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor...
...We welcome you. There can never be enough mentors.
ok, so feel free to add my name to the list!
Done!
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wicket so much but i also hope you
realize 2.0 is pre-alpha and is a moving target api-wise. hope you like
refactoring :)
Thanks for the heads up. I do realise this. My project is non urgent and
I intend to be actively involved
The feeling i get from the mail below is that incubator releases are not
really meant for all end users.. You really only want the users that really
knows that it is an incubator release.
But for me wicket-2.0 will be a full release a real release that every user
of
wicket should be able to use
Your very welcome on the wicket lists. And i do like that you choose 2.0
I would really like much more feedback of users of the 2.0 trunk!
johan
On 8/1/06, Ross Gardler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wicket so much but i also hope
you
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:30:14AM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Its a little bit itchy to read about complying with rules or about who
decides. When you get right down to it, legally, the person who decides
is the VP. And I can count on the fingers of 0 hands how many
Sorry for this lengthy response, but I got a negative vibe from
several reactions to this thread and I feel a need to vent my
concerns.
First I am a big fan of Apache and the Apache community. I think that
the way Apache works is a great example of how a community effort can
produce great
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Sorry for this lengthy response, but I got a negative vibe from
several reactions to this thread and I feel a need to vent my
concerns.
First I am a big fan of Apache and the Apache community. I think that
the way Apache works is a great example of how a community
I'll start by saying I'm not deeply involved in the roadmap plans, so
pay more attention to the other devs, but this seems a possible
position to me, i.e.
All source hosted at ASF, lists web moved to ASF.
- 1.2.x
Continue in maintainance/bug-fix mode
'wicket.*' package name
You say One of those is to be able to build releases for our
community: do you mean that you are unhappy with the stated need to
release from Apache and mark with Incubating (i.e. you want to release
1.x from SF)? Or if you were to bring the 1.x branches over to Apache,
would you be prepared to
You summarized my thoughts exactly :-)
Martijn
On 7/31/06, Gwyn Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll start by saying I'm not deeply involved in the roadmap plans, so
pay more attention to the other devs, but this seems a possible
position to me, i.e.
All source hosted at ASF, lists web
we have updated the versions section of our proposal to reflect this. please
review and lets discuss, basically we would like to incubate 1.3 as well as
2.0.
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal
-Igor
On 7/31/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You summarized my
On 7/26/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Don! Thanks Upayavira, Alexa, Sylvain, Timothy and the others
that have officially or unofficially championed Wicket. We hope that
Wicket will make a valuable addition to Apache, and we are looking
forward to get to know you guys
On 7/27/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As releases marked as incubated will probably
raise an eyebrow or two, what are our options?...
Seen from another angle, releases marked incubating are a great way
to help make your community aware of what's happening. Along with a
On 7/26/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a
desire to incubate their project within the ASF
Big +1 here. I've been looking at Wicket recently, and from a
technical point of view I like what I see *a lot*.
Your
On 7/26/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a
desire to incubate their project within the ASF
BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor.
I'm not (yet) using Wicket though, so others might be
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On 7/26/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a
desire to incubate their project within the ASF
BTW, if it's useful I'd be happy to help as an additional mentor.
I'm not (yet) using Wicket
hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying wicket so much but i also hope you
realize 2.0 is pre-alpha and is a moving target api-wise. hope you like
refactoring :)
-Igor
On 7/31/06, Ross Gardler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On 7/26/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second that. Though we should be pretty near beta and a more stable
API. I think models are the last part we're debating right now. We
plan to stabilize 2.0's API within the next two months.
Eelco
On 7/31/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi Ross, great to hear you are enjoying
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.
Keep in mind that the Incubator has very little interest in users using the
code. Our focus is entirely on developers, and users are interesting only
if
i am getting a lot of mixed messages here. we have been told that
-incubating is nothing more then a tag that the project is in the incubator
and does not at all reflect the quality of the release nor its readiness for
production use, but following is the opposite view taken from the maven2
repo
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
In general, what I recommend projects to do is follow what SA did
Keep in mind that SA *had* to do it, because they had licensing problems
with their earlier code.
As a general thing, it would be best for the developer community if they
could have all of their code in
This seems a little ridiculous.
What point is there in having something incubated if there are no users?
What sort of a community would it be that didn't accept feedback and
evolve based on that feedback?
How many users are willing to wait 6+ months to use something just
because it is undergoing
Craig,
The main point for me is that you are forking the Wicket code to
create the Apache project, and intent is everything. If you're
planning on actively developing in the old community, I'd question
the decision to come to Apache.
It is a transition phase. As with sensory systems,
Leo Simons wrote:
Its a little bit itchy to read about complying with rules or about who
decides. When you get right down to it, legally, the person who decides
is the VP. And I can count on the fingers of 0 hands how many times he
laid down the law here in incubator land!
To be clear, is
Dion,
What point is there in having something incubated if there are no users?
We're talking about a balance, and most specifically about ensuring that
only users who have made a specific and informed decision are using the code
while it is still in the Incubator. The Apache brand has a value
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
we have been told that -incubating is nothing more then a
tag that the project is in the incubator and does not at
all reflect the quality of the release nor its readiness
for production use
It is not a comment on the code quality at all, but it is a comment on
whether
from wicket's point of view we are not really concerned with the
brand abuse that much. we are in no hurry to convert our packages to
org.apache.wicket and in no hurry to call our releases apache wicket.
what we are concerned about is having a way to provide wicket releases
to our existing
On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a release, and
release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding it as
apache?
Backporting the changes to sf.net doesn't appear to me to be an
issue, since the Apache license
On Monday 31 July 2006 00:58, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Legally, you may not call it Apache Wicket
It is known as Wicket and will remain to be known as Wicket.
(if that's the name you decide on), and as a matter of policy,
I'd frown upon such 'backporting' behavior.
Not sure what part you
On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a release, and
release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding it as
apache?
Backporting the changes to sf.net
On 7/30/06, Gwyn Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure about this, as an absolute prohibition would imply the
1.x stream would go into maintainance, which might be more restrictive
than planned...
The point is that the podling is either here or it's not. If new
features are being added
On Jul 30, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Gwyn Evans wrote:
On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a
release, and
release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding
On 30/07/06, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 30, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Gwyn Evans wrote:
On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- All new development comes to the Incubator. We expect no more
'major'
On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/30/06, Gwyn Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure about this, as an absolute prohibition would imply the
1.x stream would go into maintainance, which might be more restrictive
than planned...
The point is that the podling is
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:52:39PM +0100, Upayavira wrote:
Does anyone here have an idea what the shortest time is that a new
community might be incubated (assuming no other issues)?
I think, so far, none of the new top-level projects that we have
incubated have done so in less than 6 months,
I haven't followed the entire thread, but this sounds like what we
did in Cayenne. And it did cause some misunderstanding at times
regarding our intentions. Let's try to prevent similar
misunderstanding in the case of Wicket.
The quoted explanation seems quite reasonable to me, except that
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 02:54:35AM +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Is [stuff] against the 'spirit of incubation', or some other guideline, rule
or principle?
Sorry about taking this way out of context, but its a relevant question. The
back-and-forth in this thread is pretty much about a somewhat
one issue that we are forgetting here and that needs to be mentioned is that
wicket 2.0 requires jdk5 while 1.x is jdk1.4. so im not sure how viable of
an option it is to freeze the featureset of 1.3 and only add bugfixes. a
good chunk of our community cannot migrate to jdk5 and we have promised
On Monday 31 July 2006 07:37, Leo Simons wrote:
Thanks mate (I love that word) ;o)
(eg there won't be a book coming out
in October about Apache Wicket 2.0, whereas a book on simply Wicket 2.0
in October might or might not make sense
AFAIK, it will be Wicket In Action and cover both 1.2 and
On Monday 31 July 2006 07:27, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
This way the old branch will still be supported.
But none of the users should expect that the new features will be
ported back to the old releases.
And perhaps even incubate the 1.3, in case there are strong enough interest to
keep
Hi Igor,
On Jul 30, 2006, at 8:34 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
one issue that we are forgetting here and that needs to be
mentioned is that
wicket 2.0 requires jdk5 while 1.x is jdk1.4. so im not sure how
viable of
an option it is to freeze the featureset of 1.3 and only add
bugfixes. a
good
Time scale for Wicket 2.0 is to start out releasing betas within two
months. We plan to finish Wicket In Action the next few months - say
october - and we really want the 2.0 API stabilized by then, as we're
covering 2.0. The major changes we had in mind for 2.0 have been in
for a few months now,
That's the Wicket side of it - anyone have any idea about how long the
incubation period might be expected to take?
/Gwyn
On 29/07/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time scale for Wicket 2.0 is to start out releasing betas within two
months. We plan to finish Wicket In Action the
+1 :)
And to second Leo, nice to see some more Dutch people :)
Mvgr,
Martin
Upayavira wrote:
The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a
desire to incubate their project within the ASF.
-
To
Gwyn Evans wrote:
That's the Wicket side of it - anyone have any idea about how long the
incubation period might be expected to take?
Personally, my take on it is that the administrative side of things
should be resolvable pretty quickly - collecting CLAs, reviewing
licenses - also the process
What is the current track record?
I mean there are a lot of projects that have done the same thing. What is
the best/worsed and the average?
johan
Does anyone here have an idea what the shortest time is that a new
community might be incubated (assuming no other issues)?
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
Nice proposal. Seems like a no-brainer. More Dutchies at apache is
always a good thing ;)
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:54:15PM +0100, Upayavira wrote:
=== Versions ===
Wicket currently has three versions of their code base, 1.2 (the current
release), 1.3 (planned) and 2.0 (unreleased).
We
* Chris Turner is from the UK and works as an independent consultant.
He does not intend to move with us to Apache.
What does that mean? Does he not think wicket should move to apache? Does
he not want to sign a CLA? Is there consensus within wicket on this move
or isn't there?
Chris
Leo Simons wrote:
Nice proposal. Seems like a no-brainer. More Dutchies at apache is
always a good thing ;)
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:54:15PM +0100, Upayavira wrote:
=== Versions ===
Wicket currently has three versions of their code base, 1.2 (the current
release), 1.3 (planned) and 2.0
BTW Thanks everyone for the support!
On the release note:
We are very committed to support our community even when we're
undergoing incubation. This would typically mean that we might need to
release Wicket versions. As releases marked as incubated will probably
raise an eyebrow or two, what
Hey Martijn, guys,
I'd really like to encourage you to take a look at how different
established projects that joined apache through the incubator have
handled this (spamassassin, stdcxx. roller, ofbiz, ...), as well as
some of the discussion about this releases from incubating projects
policy and
* release elsewhere, making sure to give things an appropriately different
name and making sure both users and the incubator PMC understand what
it
all means and what is going on
imho, i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2 rather then
wicket-incubating-1.2.2 as a release. to me
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
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 09:37:04AM -0700, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
* release elsewhere, making sure to give things an appropriately different
name and making sure both users and the incubator PMC understand what
it all means and what is going on
imho, i would much rather see wicket-1.2.2
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 23:54, Upayavira wrote:
The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a
desire to incubate their project within the ASF.
+1, non-binding.
The Wicket community is vibrant, diverse and already operating closely to
the Apache Way, and (if I may
+0 (I'd love to see it happen, but don't expect to be able to
contribute).
Nice folks, and anything with Upayavira, Sylvain, and Alex involved
is destined to conquer the world anyway :-)
-Brian
On Jul 26, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Upayavira wrote:
The Wicket developers
On Friday 28 July 2006 00:17, Leo Simons wrote:
* release elsewhere, making sure to give things an appropriately different
name and making sure both users and the incubator PMC understand what it
all means and what is going on
Oscar 1.0 became Apache Felix (incubating), and Richard Hall
Hi Martijn,
My email is spotty for some reason; I haven't seen much feedback for
you on the alias. Here's my take:
On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a release, and
release it on sf.net (our previous host) without
The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a
desire to incubate their project within the ASF.
I personally think that Wicket would fit very well at Apache with its
flavour of innovation and its strong, meritocracy based community.
The proposal follows (which can also be
This has my hearty +1! This is great news as I've always admired the
framework and the community behind it, and this will further
facilitate the inter-framework discussions we (Struts) has been
periodically having with Wicket.
Let me know of any way I can help,
Don
On 7/26/06, Upayavira
Hi,
I appreciate this addition to the web-framework competition at the
ASF. If you have any interest in interfacing to JSF and Apache
MyFaces, I'd be happy to help out.
regards,
Martin
On 7/26/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has my hearty +1! This is great news as I've always
Thanks Martin. If there would be a way to find ways to interoperate
without loosing both our strong points, that would be great. We've
looked into it last year, and concluded it can't really be done based
on the current JSF specs, largely because Wicket is a non-declarative
framework. But otoh,
Thanks Don! Thanks Upayavira, Alexa, Sylvain, Timothy and the others
that have officially or unofficially championed Wicket. We hope that
Wicket will make a valuable addition to Apache, and we are looking
forward to get to know you guys better when we would be part of the
Apache family.
Cheers,
Eelco,
that would be great; see you there.
Independent from the JSF standpoint, I'd like to give you guys a +1
But, that said, is non-binding.
-Matthias
On 7/26/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Martin. If there would be a way to find ways to interoperate
without loosing
67 matches
Mail list logo
