On 5/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
as far as i can see eelco is complaining because he is doing that and no one
is following! :)
No, I have been complaining/ asking other team members in the past to
fix those projects as well because it's hardly any effort for the one
who is wo
On 5/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
thats nice of you eelco, but like i said i dont think this is our job. if a
project is broken for some period of time we should move it off trunk. let
the next person who wants to use it fix it. we dont need to fix the world.
I think that atti
as far as i can see eelco is complaining because he is doing that and no one
is following! :)
-igor
On 5/7/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we dont need to fix the world.
but nobody should or would stop you if you did!
the world needs saving! Igor start doing this maybe the
we dont need to fix the world.
but nobody should or would stop you if you did!
the world needs saving! Igor start doing this maybe the rest will follow!
johan
thats nice of you eelco, but like i said i dont think this is our job. if a
project is broken for some period of time we should move it off trunk. let
the next person who wants to use it fix it. we dont need to fix the world.
-igor
On 5/7/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if we
if we break the
api it is not our responsibility to fix it, it is the job of whoever is
responsible for that wicket-stuff project.
Technically, you are right. Practically you are not.
* To start with, It's just a matter of courtesy.
* It's much less work for the one doing the API break to fix o
In my opinion Wicket Stuff is used as a Wicket specific incubator for
projects that will end up in core. At least for projects that have
'use' as intent.
this is not always the case. it is also a project place when the license
doesn't work out.
So to say that it is an incubator for everything
On 5/6/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, that does impose some form of oversight, and given the
> current state of Wicket Stuff, I doubt that it will ever happen, if it
> doesn't come from us.
Exactly.
i dont think you got it right eelco. oversight!=maintenance. if we
i think what we should do is create a two-tier system where projects that
are alive are directly in trunk, while other projects are in a subdirectory
of trunk. projects can move between these two tiers as needed.
Perhaps a wicket-stuff-incubator?? ideas can be tried out in the
incubator module
However, that does impose some form of oversight, and given the
current state of Wicket Stuff, I doubt that it will ever happen, if it
doesn't come from us.
Exactly.
It is just hard to find people with a sustained
interest in maintaining a project and actively working on its
progress.
We hav
Perhaps we should write up some goals for Wicket Stuff.
In my opinion Wicket Stuff is used as a Wicket specific incubator for
projects that will end up in core. At least for projects that have
'use' as intent.
Projects within Wicket have different intentions:
- actual use (i.e. wicket, extension
well, thats exactly it - very little is required to do this, just an svn
move. we should establish procedures/guidelines for what it takes to move
from tier 2 to tier 1 and viceversa, and where new projects start out.
-igor
On 5/6/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i think what w
i do not use the project. i do not have time, nor honestly the desire, to
fix every wicketstuff project i do not use. do you find that unfair?
Well you do have pretty strong opinions on the quality of the project
and the way it is 'managed'. And you seem to think something is wrong
with the proj
i think what we should do is create a two-tier system where projects that
are alive are directly in trunk, while other projects are in a subdirectory
of trunk. projects can move between these two tiers as needed.
It would be interesting to see someone actively maintaining that. So
far it's even
i do not use the project. i do not have time, nor honestly the desire, to
fix every wicketstuff project i do not use. do you find that unfair? as for
it being fixed on a version, do you think anyone would bump down their
hibernate version just for an auxilary project? i think not. maybe no one
rep
what defines a project as alive? at the least it works, not just compiles.
take data-hibernate 3. it compiles, but doesnt work because it hasnt been
synced with hibernate 3 changes.
It is fixed on a version in the POM, and to my knowledge it works with
that version!
if someone was to pick it u
i love the fact that wicketstuff is both a playground (very little entry
barrier for anyone) and that it serves as a repository for additional wicket
modules. the problem is when i look into trunk i see ten thousand projects.
some are dead, some are half dead, and others are alive. how am i suppos
I think it's simple. If the projects compile for a given branch, there
is no need to pull them out. And even if they don't compile for a
while - which didn't happen that much as I'm generally playing the
cleanup guy after API breaks -; as long as the Wicket branch they are
written for doesn't appr
On 5/6/07, Ryan Sonnek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a wicket-stuff developer, I for one would hate to see restrictions
placed on what can or can not be a wicket-stuff project.
This was not a thread on what constitutes a wicket stuff project, but
now that you brought it up :)
In my vision, the
19 matches
Mail list logo
