Hi I am not a committer so I can't really estimate the feasibility of the various scenarios, but I'd prefer C as it sounds like the fastest road to a stable release including generics.
Cheers, Wilko Eelco Hillenius wrote: > > Hi, > > It looks like the discussion around reverting the constructor change > that we did for 2.0 has cooled down. This email is not a vote yet, but > a summary of opinions so far[1]. Those of you Wicket committers who > didn't have your say yet (Juergen, Frank, Gwyn, Janne, Jan, Ate), I > consider that an OK for reverting. If not, please reply to the thread. > Juergen, you have been working on 2.0 quite a bit. Can you please > state your opinion, and can you tell us whether there are more > functional differences between 1.3 and 2.0 other than the constructor > change, Java 5 features, the attach/ detach change and improved models > and validators?[2] > > I think so far we can safely say reverting is supported broadly. At > least, of the people who reacted, most stated they actually preferred > add over the new constructor, and those who were either neutral or had > a slight preference for the new constructor would still support > reverting as that would keep the momentum for the project going. > > So, it looks like this may happen. But we'll vote about that in a few > days. Before we do that, we have to reach consensus on the package > we'll vote on. We have some different - and strong - opinions[3] so we > need to find a way to bridge that. Here are what I think the different > opinions: > > a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0 > (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of > the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5 > features (including generics). > > b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze > asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4 > > c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the > beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be > for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as > 1.3 is feature complete. > > Maybe the most constructive way to gather opinions here is to first > let people plainly state what they prefer before we enter discussion > mode. So, please state what package you think is the best idea (or > introduce d if you want), and why. > > Cheers, > > Eelco > > [1] > http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9350505 > http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-tf3359229.html#a9344068 > [2] http://www.nabble.com/State-1.3--features-tf3376983.html > [3] > http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-backporting-wicket-2.0-model-change-to-1.3-tf3364601.html > http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share > your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-user mailing list > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Reverting-the-constructor-change-of-2.0-tf3380114.html#a9408760 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
