You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> on 2007/03/15 00:35:30 UTC
VOTE: New roadmap and desicion on the future of Wicket 2.0 branch
There's been a lot of comment and discussion lately about the future
direction of Wicket, and the trunk/2.0 branch in particular.
We've done some hard thinking and we now have a roadmap for the future.
When What
==== ====
Now Backport the Model refactor and other remaining non-JDK-5
features from 2.0 to the 1.3.x branch.
Soon Release a 1.3.0-beta to the community.
Soon Release a 1.3.0-rc1. [2, 3, etc. if required]
A bit later Release a 1.3.0 final.
Fork a 1.4.x branch from the 1.3.0 release.
Apply generics and other JDK-5 features to 1.4.x branch.
This will make 1.4.x look just like 2.0, but with the same
constructor/add logic as 1.2.x/1.3.x currently have.
"now" ~= right now.
"soon" ~= within a couple of weeks.
"A bit later" ~= within a month or so.
We will discontinue support for 2.0 once we have branched 1.4.x and
added generics support into it, at which point the 2.0 branch will be
renamed in subversion and left to stagnate.
As already thrashed out in various discussions, this will achieve the
following:
- Provide a migration path for 2.0 users within a month or so, so they
are not left high and dry. 1.4.x will be basically the same as 2.0
currently is, only with the constructor change backed out.
- Give us two branches that will be very similar apart from JDK 5
features, and thus make it easy to back-port fixes/features from
the 1.4 branch to the 1.3 branch.
- Give us a 1.3.0 beta that is feature-complete, and thus make
upgrading from beta >> RC >> final releases trivial.
Best regards,
Al
Re: VOTE: New roadmap and desicion on the future of Wicket 2.0 branch
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
+1
i have the model done pretty much in my workspace. So that i can commit
quickly
johan
On 3/15/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
>
> There's been a lot of comment and discussion lately about the future
> direction of Wicket, and the trunk/2.0 branch in particular.
>
> We've done some hard thinking and we now have a roadmap for the future.
>
> When What
> ==== ====
> Now Backport the Model refactor and other remaining non-JDK-5
> features from 2.0 to the 1.3.x branch.
> Soon Release a 1.3.0-beta to the community.
> Soon Release a 1.3.0-rc1. [2, 3, etc. if required]
>
> A bit later Release a 1.3.0 final.
> Fork a 1.4.x branch from the 1.3.0 release.
> Apply generics and other JDK-5 features to 1.4.x branch.
> This will make 1.4.x look just like 2.0, but with the same
> constructor/add logic as 1.2.x/1.3.x currently have.
>
> "now" ~= right now.
> "soon" ~= within a couple of weeks.
> "A bit later" ~= within a month or so.
>
> We will discontinue support for 2.0 once we have branched 1.4.x and
> added generics support into it, at which point the 2.0 branch will be
> renamed in subversion and left to stagnate.
>
> As already thrashed out in various discussions, this will achieve the
> following:
>
> - Provide a migration path for 2.0 users within a month or so, so they
> are not left high and dry. 1.4.x will be basically the same as 2.0
> currently is, only with the constructor change backed out.
>
> - Give us two branches that will be very similar apart from JDK 5
> features, and thus make it easy to back-port fixes/features from
> the 1.4 branch to the 1.3 branch.
>
> - Give us a 1.3.0 beta that is feature-complete, and thus make
> upgrading from beta >> RC >> final releases trivial.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Al
>
Re: VOTE: New roadmap and desicion on the future of Wicket 2.0 branch
Posted by Gwyn Evans <gw...@gmail.com>.
+1
/Gwyn
On 14/03/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> There's been a lot of comment and discussion lately about the future
> direction of Wicket, and the trunk/2.0 branch in particular.
>
> We've done some hard thinking and we now have a roadmap for the future.
>
> When What
> ==== ====
> Now Backport the Model refactor and other remaining non-JDK-5
> features from 2.0 to the 1.3.x branch.
> Soon Release a 1.3.0-beta to the community.
> Soon Release a 1.3.0-rc1. [2, 3, etc. if required]
>
> A bit later Release a 1.3.0 final.
> Fork a 1.4.x branch from the 1.3.0 release.
> Apply generics and other JDK-5 features to 1.4.x branch.
> This will make 1.4.x look just like 2.0, but with the same
> constructor/add logic as 1.2.x/1.3.x currently have.
>
> "now" ~= right now.
> "soon" ~= within a couple of weeks.
> "A bit later" ~= within a month or so.
>
> We will discontinue support for 2.0 once we have branched 1.4.x and
> added generics support into it, at which point the 2.0 branch will be
> renamed in subversion and left to stagnate.
>
> As already thrashed out in various discussions, this will achieve the
> following:
>
> - Provide a migration path for 2.0 users within a month or so, so they
> are not left high and dry. 1.4.x will be basically the same as 2.0
> currently is, only with the constructor change backed out.
>
> - Give us two branches that will be very similar apart from JDK 5
> features, and thus make it easy to back-port fixes/features from
> the 1.4 branch to the 1.3 branch.
>
> - Give us a 1.3.0 beta that is feature-complete, and thus make
> upgrading from beta >> RC >> final releases trivial.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Al
>
--
Download Wicket 1.2.5 now! - http://wicketframework.org
Re: VOTE: New roadmap and desicion on the future of Wicket 2.0 branch
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
Martijn
--
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: VOTE: New roadmap and desicion on the future of Wicket 2.0 branch
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
-igor
On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Eelco
>
>
> On 3/14/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> > There's been a lot of comment and discussion lately about the future
> > direction of Wicket, and the trunk/2.0 branch in particular.
> >
> > We've done some hard thinking and we now have a roadmap for the future.
> >
> > When What
> > ==== ====
> > Now Backport the Model refactor and other remaining non-JDK-5
> > features from 2.0 to the 1.3.x branch.
> > Soon Release a 1.3.0-beta to the community.
> > Soon Release a 1.3.0-rc1. [2, 3, etc. if required]
> >
> > A bit later Release a 1.3.0 final.
> > Fork a 1.4.x branch from the 1.3.0 release.
> > Apply generics and other JDK-5 features to 1.4.x branch.
> > This will make 1.4.x look just like 2.0, but with the
> same
> > constructor/add logic as 1.2.x/1.3.x currently have.
> >
> > "now" ~= right now.
> > "soon" ~= within a couple of weeks.
> > "A bit later" ~= within a month or so.
> >
> > We will discontinue support for 2.0 once we have branched 1.4.x and
> > added generics support into it, at which point the 2.0 branch will be
> > renamed in subversion and left to stagnate.
> >
> > As already thrashed out in various discussions, this will achieve the
> > following:
> >
> > - Provide a migration path for 2.0 users within a month or so, so they
> > are not left high and dry. 1.4.x will be basically the same as 2.0
> > currently is, only with the constructor change backed out.
> >
> > - Give us two branches that will be very similar apart from JDK 5
> > features, and thus make it easy to back-port fixes/features from
> > the 1.4 branch to the 1.3 branch.
> >
> > - Give us a 1.3.0 beta that is feature-complete, and thus make
> > upgrading from beta >> RC >> final releases trivial.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Al
> >
>
Re: VOTE: New roadmap and desicion on the future of Wicket 2.0 branch
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
Eelco
On 3/14/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> There's been a lot of comment and discussion lately about the future
> direction of Wicket, and the trunk/2.0 branch in particular.
>
> We've done some hard thinking and we now have a roadmap for the future.
>
> When What
> ==== ====
> Now Backport the Model refactor and other remaining non-JDK-5
> features from 2.0 to the 1.3.x branch.
> Soon Release a 1.3.0-beta to the community.
> Soon Release a 1.3.0-rc1. [2, 3, etc. if required]
>
> A bit later Release a 1.3.0 final.
> Fork a 1.4.x branch from the 1.3.0 release.
> Apply generics and other JDK-5 features to 1.4.x branch.
> This will make 1.4.x look just like 2.0, but with the same
> constructor/add logic as 1.2.x/1.3.x currently have.
>
> "now" ~= right now.
> "soon" ~= within a couple of weeks.
> "A bit later" ~= within a month or so.
>
> We will discontinue support for 2.0 once we have branched 1.4.x and
> added generics support into it, at which point the 2.0 branch will be
> renamed in subversion and left to stagnate.
>
> As already thrashed out in various discussions, this will achieve the
> following:
>
> - Provide a migration path for 2.0 users within a month or so, so they
> are not left high and dry. 1.4.x will be basically the same as 2.0
> currently is, only with the constructor change backed out.
>
> - Give us two branches that will be very similar apart from JDK 5
> features, and thus make it easy to back-port fixes/features from
> the 1.4 branch to the 1.3 branch.
>
> - Give us a 1.3.0 beta that is feature-complete, and thus make
> upgrading from beta >> RC >> final releases trivial.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Al
>
Re: VOTE: New roadmap and decision on the future of Wicket 2.0 branch
Posted by Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com>.
> We've done some hard thinking and we now have a roadmap for the future.
+1
Al
Re: VOTE: New roadmap and desicion on the future of Wicket 2.0 branch
Posted by Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
-Matej
On 3/15/07, Frank Bille <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I totally agree. I have also started a release wiki page where I try to
> collect the information about the legals we have been going through and
> solved.
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Wicket+1.3.0+incubating+checkpoint+1
>
> Frank
>
> On 3/15/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > we are doing that, but its not a public release
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 3/14/07, Frank Bille <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 and I still think we should do a 1.3 release to IPMC "now"
> > >
> > > Frank
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/15/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There's been a lot of comment and discussion lately about the future
> > > > direction of Wicket, and the trunk/2.0 branch in particular.
> > > >
> > > > We've done some hard thinking and we now have a roadmap for the
> > future.
> > > >
> > > > When What
> > > > ==== ====
> > > > Now Backport the Model refactor and other remaining
> > non-JDK-5
> > > > features from 2.0 to the 1.3.x branch.
> > > > Soon Release a 1.3.0-beta to the community.
> > > > Soon Release a 1.3.0-rc1. [2, 3, etc. if required]
> > > >
> > > > A bit later Release a 1.3.0 final.
> > > > Fork a 1.4.x branch from the 1.3.0 release.
> > > > Apply generics and other JDK-5 features to 1.4.xbranch.
> > > > This will make 1.4.x look just like 2.0, but with the
> > > same
> > > > constructor/add logic as 1.2.x/1.3.x currently have.
> > > >
> > > > "now" ~= right now.
> > > > "soon" ~= within a couple of weeks.
> > > > "A bit later" ~= within a month or so.
> > > >
> > > > We will discontinue support for 2.0 once we have branched 1.4.x and
> > > > added generics support into it, at which point the 2.0 branch will be
> > > > renamed in subversion and left to stagnate.
> > > >
> > > > As already thrashed out in various discussions, this will achieve the
> > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > - Provide a migration path for 2.0 users within a month or so, so
> > they
> > > > are not left high and dry. 1.4.x will be basically the same as 2.0
> > > > currently is, only with the constructor change backed out.
> > > >
> > > > - Give us two branches that will be very similar apart from JDK 5
> > > > features, and thus make it easy to back-port fixes/features from
> > > > the 1.4 branch to the 1.3 branch.
> > > >
> > > > - Give us a 1.3.0 beta that is feature-complete, and thus make
> > > > upgrading from beta >> RC >> final releases trivial.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Al
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: VOTE: New roadmap and desicion on the future of Wicket 2.0 branch
Posted by Frank Bille <fr...@gmail.com>.
I totally agree. I have also started a release wiki page where I try to
collect the information about the legals we have been going through and
solved.
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Wicket+1.3.0+incubating+checkpoint+1
Frank
On 3/15/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> we are doing that, but its not a public release
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 3/14/07, Frank Bille <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 and I still think we should do a 1.3 release to IPMC "now"
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > On 3/15/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There's been a lot of comment and discussion lately about the future
> > > direction of Wicket, and the trunk/2.0 branch in particular.
> > >
> > > We've done some hard thinking and we now have a roadmap for the
> future.
> > >
> > > When What
> > > ==== ====
> > > Now Backport the Model refactor and other remaining
> non-JDK-5
> > > features from 2.0 to the 1.3.x branch.
> > > Soon Release a 1.3.0-beta to the community.
> > > Soon Release a 1.3.0-rc1. [2, 3, etc. if required]
> > >
> > > A bit later Release a 1.3.0 final.
> > > Fork a 1.4.x branch from the 1.3.0 release.
> > > Apply generics and other JDK-5 features to 1.4.xbranch.
> > > This will make 1.4.x look just like 2.0, but with the
> > same
> > > constructor/add logic as 1.2.x/1.3.x currently have.
> > >
> > > "now" ~= right now.
> > > "soon" ~= within a couple of weeks.
> > > "A bit later" ~= within a month or so.
> > >
> > > We will discontinue support for 2.0 once we have branched 1.4.x and
> > > added generics support into it, at which point the 2.0 branch will be
> > > renamed in subversion and left to stagnate.
> > >
> > > As already thrashed out in various discussions, this will achieve the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > - Provide a migration path for 2.0 users within a month or so, so
> they
> > > are not left high and dry. 1.4.x will be basically the same as 2.0
> > > currently is, only with the constructor change backed out.
> > >
> > > - Give us two branches that will be very similar apart from JDK 5
> > > features, and thus make it easy to back-port fixes/features from
> > > the 1.4 branch to the 1.3 branch.
> > >
> > > - Give us a 1.3.0 beta that is feature-complete, and thus make
> > > upgrading from beta >> RC >> final releases trivial.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Al
> > >
> >
>
Re: VOTE: New roadmap and desicion on the future of Wicket 2.0 branch
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
we are doing that, but its not a public release
-igor
On 3/14/07, Frank Bille <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 and I still think we should do a 1.3 release to IPMC "now"
>
> Frank
>
>
> On 3/15/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> >
> > There's been a lot of comment and discussion lately about the future
> > direction of Wicket, and the trunk/2.0 branch in particular.
> >
> > We've done some hard thinking and we now have a roadmap for the future.
> >
> > When What
> > ==== ====
> > Now Backport the Model refactor and other remaining non-JDK-5
> > features from 2.0 to the 1.3.x branch.
> > Soon Release a 1.3.0-beta to the community.
> > Soon Release a 1.3.0-rc1. [2, 3, etc. if required]
> >
> > A bit later Release a 1.3.0 final.
> > Fork a 1.4.x branch from the 1.3.0 release.
> > Apply generics and other JDK-5 features to 1.4.x branch.
> > This will make 1.4.x look just like 2.0, but with the
> same
> > constructor/add logic as 1.2.x/1.3.x currently have.
> >
> > "now" ~= right now.
> > "soon" ~= within a couple of weeks.
> > "A bit later" ~= within a month or so.
> >
> > We will discontinue support for 2.0 once we have branched 1.4.x and
> > added generics support into it, at which point the 2.0 branch will be
> > renamed in subversion and left to stagnate.
> >
> > As already thrashed out in various discussions, this will achieve the
> > following:
> >
> > - Provide a migration path for 2.0 users within a month or so, so they
> > are not left high and dry. 1.4.x will be basically the same as 2.0
> > currently is, only with the constructor change backed out.
> >
> > - Give us two branches that will be very similar apart from JDK 5
> > features, and thus make it easy to back-port fixes/features from
> > the 1.4 branch to the 1.3 branch.
> >
> > - Give us a 1.3.0 beta that is feature-complete, and thus make
> > upgrading from beta >> RC >> final releases trivial.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Al
> >
>
Re: VOTE: New roadmap and desicion on the future of Wicket 2.0 branch
Posted by Frank Bille <fr...@gmail.com>.
+1 and I still think we should do a 1.3 release to IPMC "now"
Frank
On 3/15/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
>
> There's been a lot of comment and discussion lately about the future
> direction of Wicket, and the trunk/2.0 branch in particular.
>
> We've done some hard thinking and we now have a roadmap for the future.
>
> When What
> ==== ====
> Now Backport the Model refactor and other remaining non-JDK-5
> features from 2.0 to the 1.3.x branch.
> Soon Release a 1.3.0-beta to the community.
> Soon Release a 1.3.0-rc1. [2, 3, etc. if required]
>
> A bit later Release a 1.3.0 final.
> Fork a 1.4.x branch from the 1.3.0 release.
> Apply generics and other JDK-5 features to 1.4.x branch.
> This will make 1.4.x look just like 2.0, but with the same
> constructor/add logic as 1.2.x/1.3.x currently have.
>
> "now" ~= right now.
> "soon" ~= within a couple of weeks.
> "A bit later" ~= within a month or so.
>
> We will discontinue support for 2.0 once we have branched 1.4.x and
> added generics support into it, at which point the 2.0 branch will be
> renamed in subversion and left to stagnate.
>
> As already thrashed out in various discussions, this will achieve the
> following:
>
> - Provide a migration path for 2.0 users within a month or so, so they
> are not left high and dry. 1.4.x will be basically the same as 2.0
> currently is, only with the constructor change backed out.
>
> - Give us two branches that will be very similar apart from JDK 5
> features, and thus make it easy to back-port fixes/features from
> the 1.4 branch to the 1.3 branch.
>
> - Give us a 1.3.0 beta that is feature-complete, and thus make
> upgrading from beta >> RC >> final releases trivial.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Al
>