incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Igor Vaynberg" <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Date Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:34:59 GMT
one issue that we are forgetting here and that needs to be mentioned is that
wicket 2.0 requires jdk5 while 1.x is jdk1.4. so im not sure how viable of
an option it is to freeze the featureset of 1.3 and only add bugfixes. a
good chunk of our community cannot migrate to jdk5 and we have promised to
support them not only with bugfixes but with an evolving featureset for at
least a good while.

also keeping things completely separate ( issue tracking, svn, mailing list
) will add a significant overhead to our administration. we are already
stretched thin by supporting two versions, this will just add pain for us
not to mention that some issues that are discussed are relevant to the
development of both 1.x and 2.0 branches.


On 7/30/06, Andrus Adamchik <> wrote:
> I haven't followed the entire thread, but this sounds like what we
> did in Cayenne. And it did cause some misunderstanding at times
> regarding our intentions. Let's try to prevent similar
> misunderstanding in the case of Wicket.
> The quoted explanation seems quite reasonable to me, except that I
> would suggest to feature-freeze what you have on your dev branch,
> make a final release, and from that point only make bugfix releases
> from that branch (outside Apache) to encourage users to switch to
> Apache version. This way the old branch will still be "supported".
> But none of the users should expect that the new features will be
> ported back to the old releases.
> Andrus
> On Jul 30, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Gwyn Evans wrote:
> > It might be a question of degree, as while the intention is that the
> > primary development be in the 2.0 branch, there is a roadmap for the
> > 1.* branch that includes a 1.3 which might be viewed as having "new
> > features", to support the "old community" which may not be in a
> > position to switch to the 2.0 branch, as that will be a non-trivial
> > change.
> >
> > That's the release branch that I'm concerned about, and my concern is
> > that the above, taken literally, could be read as a suggestion to
> > abandon our existing users...
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message