what do you mean flag 1.2.5 as non-ok? as far as i am concerned those changes can go into 1.2.6, but i thought since you havent uploaded the release you can rebuild it. but since you have already those changes can wait until 1.2.6. no biggie. there is no reason why we shouldnt have a 1.2.6especially since eelco says those were important bugs - and it doesnt have to happen any time soon, for now people interested in those fixes can use wicket-1.2.x.
-igor On 2/9/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then why didn't you flag the 1.2.5 as non-ok? I *JUST* fucking uploaded the release to sf.net. If this was communicated, then I could have just scrapped the distributions, and update them from svn. I created the release and uploaded them *explicitly* so that people would take a look at it, to prevent this kind of stuff to happen. Martijn On 2/10/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/9/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why are there commits on 1.2.x *after* the 1.2.5 release has happened? > > We wouldn't maintain 1.2.x for things other than showstopper bugs > > which need a vote to be held. > > Ugh, I forgot (honestly!) about voting. > > Re *after* the release... well, I thought you we still doing a dry run. > > > Now we have to release 1.2.6! > > Sorry. I'll help with that. Actually issues 260 and 269 are show > stoppers in my book. 260 was reported with the remark 'Bumping up > priority, because wicket fails to load the Sun JCE provider on the > standard Mac OS X JVM, but with the patch it works.' and 260 got me > (Teachscape) in big trouble and it took quite a while to figure out > why. It won't touch most people, but when it does, it's nasty. > > Eelco > -- Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
