Time scale for Wicket 2.0 is to start out releasing betas within two
months. We plan to finish Wicket In Action the next few months - say
october - and we really want the 2.0 API stabilized by then, as we're
covering 2.0. The major changes we had in mind for 2.0 have been in
for a few months now,
a few more changes that i think that policy neutral (please jump in if
i am mistaken)
i'm +1to all
- robert
--8<--
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-37 moves material
which is not related to the proposal
That's the Wicket side of it - anyone have any idea about how long the
incubation period might be expected to take?
/Gwyn
On 29/07/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Time scale for Wicket 2.0 is to start out releasing betas within two
months. We plan to finish Wicket In Action the n
+1 :)
And to second Leo, nice to see some more Dutch people :)
Mvgr,
Martin
Upayavira wrote:
The Wicket developers (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) have expressed a
desire to incubate their project within the ASF.
-
To unsubsc
Gwyn Evans wrote:
> That's the Wicket side of it - anyone have any idea about how long the
> incubation period might be expected to take?
Personally, my take on it is that the administrative side of things
should be resolvable pretty quickly - collecting CLAs, reviewing
licenses - also the process
What is the current track record?
I mean there are a lot of projects that have done the same thing. What is
the best/worsed and the average?
johan
Does anyone here have an idea what the shortest time is that a new
community might be incubated (assuming no other issues)?
Hi,
Personally, my take on it is that the administrative side of things
should be resolvable pretty quickly - collecting CLAs, reviewing
licenses - also the process of Incubator PMC members observing how the
Wicket community operates, all of that can IMO happen quite quickly.
Collecting CLAs c
On 7/28/06, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't know the background of this policy, but to me it seems that
including "incubating" (or something like that) in the artifact
version number is much more visible to a user than the repository
where the artifact resides.
AIUI, the concer
Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal?
- I think Glasgow is fine since it appears not to conflict with any
registered software marks. I don't think we need to be worried about
the university reference, and we obviously have several projects
already named for cities. I'm also
On Jul 29, 2006, at 7:12 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
AIUI, the concern raised by Noel was that Maven never indicates the
artifact version number. Therefore, even if it had 'incubating' in
there somewhere, it wouldn't matter as no one would know it was under
incubation.
I guess I am with Jukka
On 7/29/06, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 29, 2006, at 7:12 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> AIUI, the concern raised by Noel was that Maven never indicates the
> artifact version number. Therefore, even if it had 'incubating' in
> there somewhere, it wouldn't matter as no one
On Jul 30, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
There are (at least) two scenarios where I believe there is
legitimate cause
for concern with the way Maven does things:
* You can declare a dependency on a particular groupId/artifactId
combination *without* specifying a version number.
On Jul 29, 2006, at 10:03 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On Jul 30, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
There are (at least) two scenarios where I believe there is
legitimate cause
for concern with the way Maven does things:
* You can declare a dependency on a particular groupId/artifactI
13 matches
Mail list logo
