The idea behind the matching release numbers was so that Wicket newbs could more easily adopt the most commonly used and supported wicketstuff projects into their projects. I would like to be able to still have that. No compatibility matrix needed - if you are using Wicket 1.4.1 - use WS 1.4.1. That being said, I think that the best solution is that we have 1.4.1.X where X is our release number.
The biggest problem is still what a hassle it is to build a release. When I built rc8, it took a couple days because people had broken junk in trunk, not followed pom conventions, etc. Plus, syncing the build artifacts to the repo was a pain because it's not documented, and I'm no maven guru. I haven't even had time to build 1.4.0 to match Wicket yet, and that is arguably the most important one since we started WS Core. If someone would like to help by building 1.4.0 and documenting a streamlined process, I would love it. I have been running a Continuum server that was doing continuous builds as well. I think that we could see about using the release process on Continuum to run mvn release:deploy and automating releases. I just don't have time this week, and probably won't next week. So - anyone volunteering? -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:01 PM, nino martinez wael<[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm I believe with may way it should be possible todo both.. > > However I don't much care what the releases are named its the quality > that matters to me. No matter what the customer will blame me if > something does not work, they don't care if its a 1.4, 1.4.1.1 > release snapshot or snafu:) > > Jeremy are doing a fine job. However feedback are always nice, I like > to get that too from my wicketstuffings. > > -my two cents.. > > 2009/8/12 Martijn Dashorst <[email protected]>: >> Given the lackluster release history of Wicket Stuff, I'd suggest >> going with whatever the only person able *AND* willing to cut releases >> wants. In this case, that is Jeremy. If you don't want to follow the >> general Wicket Stuff release processes, you're welcome to maintain >> your own projects and release them at your own schedule. >> >> It doesn't make sense to me to go back on a decision that was made, >> just because 2 folks think it is "better". IMO having a release >> following Wicket's releases is better than not having a release. >> >> The problem with Wicket Stuff is not that they follow the Wicket >> release cycle, it is that nobody gives a damn to cut releases. Jeremy >> fixed that. If you think you can do better, don't put your project in >> the Wicket Stuff parent group, but release the software on your own. >> >> Martijn >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Reinhard >> Nägele<[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'd like to second Maartens point. Identical releases to Wicket itself would >>> mean that it always depends on Wicket. Independent releases would not be >>> possible. Bugs could not be fixed and new features could not be added >>> without a new Wicket release. This doesn't really make sense to me. >>> >>> Reinhard >>> >>> >>> Jeremy Thomerson schrieb: >>>>>> >>>>>> Now that Wicket 1.4.0 is out, I wonder which wicketstuff core version is >>>>>> compatible. There is no 1.4.0 version of wicketstuff core (yet?). Should >>>>>> I >>>>>> use 1.4-rc8-SNAPSHOT? >>>>>> >>>> >>>> It should be just 1.4-SNAPSHOT. 1.4-rc8-SNAPSHOT was an accidental >>>> relic of after I built rc8 >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Side note: I don't see the version of wicket-stuff has to match exactly >>>>> with version of wicket ? >>>>> Suppose someone releases wicketstuff-core-1.4.0 today, and tomorrow some >>>>> bugs are fixed in wicketstuff-core, then we can't release these bug-fixes >>>>> until wicket 1.4.1 is out ? >>>>> >>>>> IMO, wicket is just a dependency of wicketstuff-code (as defoined in the >>>>> pom) and both projects should use their own unrelated version numbers. >>>>> >>>>> wdyt ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> When I setup wicketstuff-core, I proposed that we structure it to have >>>> identical releases to Wicket. The community agreed. I still think >>>> this should be the case. >>>> -- >>>> Jeremy Thomerson >>>> http://www.wickettraining.com >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >> Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications >> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.0 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
