You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> on 2007/06/07 15:09:41 UTC
[proposal] 1.3.0 end game
This is the proposal for our end game to a final release of Wicket 1.3.0
- build 1.3.0-beta 2 this weekend, release next week
- after the 20th start work on release candidates:
These will not be official releases, because I want to move quickly on
these builds. So at least once every week we (I?) will publish a new
release on people.apache.org. We will hold a vote on whether the
released packages will be the final version, or a new release is
necessary.
Schedule:
6/09 release beta 2
6/15 make beta 2 available for general public, if PPMC and IPMC don't object
6/20 board@ meeting, graduate?
6/23 build rc1
6/26 vote: make rc1 final, or build a new one
6/30 build rc2
7/03 vote: make rc2 final, or build a new one
7/07 build rc3
7/10 vote: make rc3 final, or build a new one
7/14 give up
Any one have other/better/alternative ideas?
Martijn
--
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: [proposal] 1.3.0 end game
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
why would that be a problem for wicket
the urls of wicket don't point to any files directly. But there are a lot of
those (struts .do files??)
so it seems that it first tries to resolve a jsp file before giving it to
the filter?
But how is that relevant for wicket? what does it first try to resolve?
If that is the case that a filter only works for a request that maps to a
real file then that websphere version
should never be released. That seems to me like a major critical bug.
but you can always use the wicket servlet.
johan
On 6/8/07, Sean Sullivan <se...@seansullivan.com> wrote:
>
> Websphere 6.0.2.13 returns a 404 response for all of my requests. The
> root
> cause seems to be a bug in Websphere's servlet container. The bug
> is documented here:
>
> http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=180&uid=swg1PK27620
>
> I'm the process of upgrading to Websphere 6.0.2.17. I'll let you know if
> the problem goes away.
>
> Sean
>
> On 6/8/07, Jan Vermeulen <ja...@isencia.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Sean Sullivan-3 wrote:
> > >
> > > FYI --- I'm still having serious trouble with Wicket 1.3 in Websphere
> > 6.0.
> > > I am debugging the issue and
> > > I'll open a JIRA issue this morning.
> > >
> > > Sean
> > >
> >
> > What issues are you having ?
> > We are running Wicket 1.3 on WebSphere 6 (using OSGI BridgeServlet).
> >
> > Jan.
> >
> >
>
Re: [proposal] 1.3.0 end game
Posted by Sean Sullivan <se...@seansullivan.com>.
Websphere 6.0.2.13 returns a 404 response for all of my requests. The root
cause seems to be a bug in Websphere's servlet container. The bug
is documented here:
http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=180&uid=swg1PK27620
I'm the process of upgrading to Websphere 6.0.2.17. I'll let you know if
the problem goes away.
Sean
On 6/8/07, Jan Vermeulen <ja...@isencia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sean Sullivan-3 wrote:
> >
> > FYI --- I'm still having serious trouble with Wicket 1.3 in Websphere
> 6.0.
> > I am debugging the issue and
> > I'll open a JIRA issue this morning.
> >
> > Sean
> >
>
> What issues are you having ?
> We are running Wicket 1.3 on WebSphere 6 (using OSGI BridgeServlet).
>
> Jan.
>
>
Re: [proposal] 1.3.0 end game
Posted by Jan Vermeulen <ja...@isencia.com>.
Sean Sullivan-3 wrote:
>
> FYI --- I'm still having serious trouble with Wicket 1.3 in Websphere 6.0.
> I am debugging the issue and
> I'll open a JIRA issue this morning.
>
> Sean
>
What issues are you having ?
We are running Wicket 1.3 on WebSphere 6 (using OSGI BridgeServlet).
Jan.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-proposal--1.3.0-end-game-tf3883766.html#a11023031
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [proposal] 1.3.0 end game
Posted by Sean Sullivan <se...@seansullivan.com>.
On 6/7/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/7/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > can't we do an RC at the moment we graduate? (a bit more fuss then?)
> >
> > Also we can try to have only 1 or 2 release candidates so that the
> release
> > is a bit earlier..
>
> I think we need as many release candidates as it takes to get it free
> of (serious) bugs we know of.
FYI --- I'm still having serious trouble with Wicket 1.3 in Websphere 6.0.
I am debugging the issue and
I'll open a JIRA issue this morning.
Sean
Re: [proposal] 1.3.0 end game
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 6/7/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> can't we do an RC at the moment we graduate? (a bit more fuss then?)
>
> Also we can try to have only 1 or 2 release candidates so that the release
> is a bit earlier..
I think we need as many release candidates as it takes to get it free
of (serious) bugs we know of.
Martijn, your schedule looks fine, but I don't agree with 'give up'
obviously :). A JIRA search on fix version = 1.3.x or no version gives
78 issues for Wicket core alone, and we should at least have taken a
look at all of them.
Eelco
Re: [proposal] 1.3.0 end game
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
can't we do an RC at the moment we graduate? (a bit more fuss then?)
Also we can try to have only 1 or 2 release candidates so that the release
is a bit earlier..
johan
On 6/7/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is the proposal for our end game to a final release of Wicket 1.3.0
>
> - build 1.3.0-beta 2 this weekend, release next week
> - after the 20th start work on release candidates:
>
> These will not be official releases, because I want to move quickly on
> these builds. So at least once every week we (I?) will publish a new
> release on people.apache.org. We will hold a vote on whether the
> released packages will be the final version, or a new release is
> necessary.
>
> Schedule:
>
> 6/09 release beta 2
> 6/15 make beta 2 available for general public, if PPMC and IPMC don't
> object
>
> 6/20 board@ meeting, graduate?
>
> 6/23 build rc1
> 6/26 vote: make rc1 final, or build a new one
>
> 6/30 build rc2
> 7/03 vote: make rc2 final, or build a new one
>
> 7/07 build rc3
> 7/10 vote: make rc3 final, or build a new one
>
> 7/14 give up
>
> Any one have other/better/alternative ideas?
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
Re: [proposal] 1.3.0 end game
Posted by Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com>.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Any one have other/better/alternative ideas?
I don't think we should call something a release candidate if it has
issues in JIRA that we intend to fix before the final release. A release
candidate should be just that - we only push it out when we're fairly
sure things are good.
We might need a beta-3, or we might not. I'm about to go fix the JIRA
trunk issue previously mentioned by JBQ, and have a sift through bugs
that aren't currently marked as being against a particular release in an
effort to make it a bit more obvious where we stand.
Al
Re: [proposal] 1.3.0 end game
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Quenot <jb...@apache.org>.
* Xavier Hanin:
> IMHO 3 or 4 days is not enough for the community to give feedback on a RC,
> especially when it includes a week-end. The first release candidate at least
> should let one week to the community to try out the RC and raise issues if
> any. It's unlikely the first RC will be promoted to a release anyway, so
> letting more time is just to collect more issues and raise the probability
> for the second RC to be promoted.
>
> Otherwise the schedule looks good.
+1.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
Re: [proposal] 1.3.0 end game
Posted by Xavier Hanin <xa...@gmail.com>.
IMHO 3 or 4 days is not enough for the community to give feedback on a RC,
especially when it includes a week-end. The first release candidate at least
should let one week to the community to try out the RC and raise issues if
any. It's unlikely the first RC will be promoted to a release anyway, so
letting more time is just to collect more issues and raise the probability
for the second RC to be promoted.
Otherwise the schedule looks good.
Xavier
On 6/7/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is the proposal for our end game to a final release of Wicket 1.3.0
>
> - build 1.3.0-beta 2 this weekend, release next week
> - after the 20th start work on release candidates:
>
> These will not be official releases, because I want to move quickly on
> these builds. So at least once every week we (I?) will publish a new
> release on people.apache.org. We will hold a vote on whether the
> released packages will be the final version, or a new release is
> necessary.
>
> Schedule:
>
> 6/09 release beta 2
> 6/15 make beta 2 available for general public, if PPMC and IPMC don't
> object
>
> 6/20 board@ meeting, graduate?
>
> 6/23 build rc1
> 6/26 vote: make rc1 final, or build a new one
>
> 6/30 build rc2
> 7/03 vote: make rc2 final, or build a new one
>
> 7/07 build rc3
> 7/10 vote: make rc3 final, or build a new one
>
> 7/14 give up
>
> Any one have other/better/alternative ideas?
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
--
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
Manage your dependencies with Ivy!
http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
Re: [proposal] 1.3.0 end game
Posted by craigdd <le...@visi.com>.
I know you guys really want to move on these releases and graduation, as do
I. But I think it would look much better to the market if there was a final
release of 1.3 ready as you graduate. I'd rather have people start using
1.3 out of the gates rather than 1.2.6, which I think will happen because
most serious evaluations of the product for production usage will tend to
use the non RC/BETA release of a product.
Just my two cents.
-Craig
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
> This is the proposal for our end game to a final release of Wicket 1.3.0
>
> - build 1.3.0-beta 2 this weekend, release next week
> - after the 20th start work on release candidates:
>
> These will not be official releases, because I want to move quickly on
> these builds. So at least once every week we (I?) will publish a new
> release on people.apache.org. We will hold a vote on whether the
> released packages will be the final version, or a new release is
> necessary.
>
> Schedule:
>
> 6/09 release beta 2
> 6/15 make beta 2 available for general public, if PPMC and IPMC don't
> object
>
> 6/20 board@ meeting, graduate?
>
> 6/23 build rc1
> 6/26 vote: make rc1 final, or build a new one
>
> 6/30 build rc2
> 7/03 vote: make rc2 final, or build a new one
>
> 7/07 build rc3
> 7/10 vote: make rc3 final, or build a new one
>
> 7/14 give up
>
> Any one have other/better/alternative ideas?
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-proposal--1.3.0-end-game-tf3883766.html#a11010154
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.