Re: RE: Re: release of commons-imaging
I'll see about creating a release candidate over the next few days. Gary On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 6:07 AM William Borg Barthet < william.borgbart...@bloomreach.com> wrote: > Sorry to be a pain about this, is there any timeline for tagging/releasing > a version of commons-imaging? > > Thanks again for your support. > > Regards, > > William > > On 2024/03/06 14:50:51 William Borg Barthet wrote: > > Thanks for your replies. > > > > I am actually waiting on the WebP support. I found a PR and tested > against > > it and it seems to work for my purposes. I cannot really make use of a > > SNAPSHOT, so any sort of tagged release, short of a 1.0 release would > > suffice if it contained the WebP support. > > > > Thanks and regards > > > > William > > > > On 2024/02/28 15:43:06 Gary Gregory wrote: > > > Yes: M is for milestone. > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 10:40 AM Bruno Kinoshita > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > > > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > > > > compatibility > > > > > can be broken)? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me too, at least users wouldn't expect any difference > > seeing > > > > a new alphaN+1 announced. But not sure if there won't be any > differences > > > > with a milestone release (M is for milestone, right?) > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 16:11, Gilles Sadowski > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita > > > > > a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > > > > > > > > What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 > releases? > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API > > > > right, > > > > > > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need > > one or > > > > > > more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. > But > > if > > > > we > > > > > > can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will > > try > > > > > that > > > > > > to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with > M1/M2/M3, > > the > > > > > same > > > > > > way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already. > > > > > > > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > > > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > > > > compatibility > > > > > can be broken)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
RE: RE: Re: release of commons-imaging
Sorry to be a pain about this, is there any timeline for tagging/releasing a version of commons-imaging? Thanks again for your support. Regards, William On 2024/03/06 14:50:51 William Borg Barthet wrote: > Thanks for your replies. > > I am actually waiting on the WebP support. I found a PR and tested against > it and it seems to work for my purposes. I cannot really make use of a > SNAPSHOT, so any sort of tagged release, short of a 1.0 release would > suffice if it contained the WebP support. > > Thanks and regards > > William > > On 2024/02/28 15:43:06 Gary Gregory wrote: > > Yes: M is for milestone. > > > > Gary > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 10:40 AM Bruno Kinoshita > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > > > compatibility > > > > can be broken)? > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me too, at least users wouldn't expect any difference > seeing > > > a new alphaN+1 announced. But not sure if there won't be any differences > > > with a milestone release (M is for milestone, right?) > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 16:11, Gilles Sadowski > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita > > > > a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > > > > > > What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 releases? > > > > > > > > > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API > > > right, > > > > > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need > one or > > > > > more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. But > if > > > we > > > > > can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will > try > > > > that > > > > > to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with M1/M2/M3, > the > > > > same > > > > > way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already. > > > > > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > > > compatibility > > > > can be broken)? > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
RE: Re: release of commons-imaging
Thanks for your replies. I am actually waiting on the WebP support. I found a PR and tested against it and it seems to work for my purposes. I cannot really make use of a SNAPSHOT, so any sort of tagged release, short of a 1.0 release would suffice if it contained the WebP support. Thanks and regards William On 2024/02/28 15:43:06 Gary Gregory wrote: > Yes: M is for milestone. > > Gary > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 10:40 AM Bruno Kinoshita > wrote: > > > > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > > compatibility > > > can be broken)? > > > > > > Sounds good to me too, at least users wouldn't expect any difference seeing > > a new alphaN+1 announced. But not sure if there won't be any differences > > with a milestone release (M is for milestone, right?) > > > > Cheers > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 16:11, Gilles Sadowski > > wrote: > > > > > Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita > > > a écrit : > > > > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > > > > What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 releases? > > > > > > > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API > > right, > > > > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need one or > > > > more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. But if > > we > > > > can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will try > > > that > > > > to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with M1/M2/M3, the > > > same > > > > way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already. > > > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > > compatibility > > > can be broken)? > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
Re: release of commons-imaging
Yes: M is for milestone. Gary On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 10:40 AM Bruno Kinoshita wrote: > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > compatibility > > can be broken)? > > > Sounds good to me too, at least users wouldn't expect any difference seeing > a new alphaN+1 announced. But not sure if there won't be any differences > with a milestone release (M is for milestone, right?) > > Cheers > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 16:11, Gilles Sadowski > wrote: > > > Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita > > a écrit : > > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > > What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 releases? > > > > > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API > right, > > > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > > > > > > > > Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need one or > > > more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. But if > we > > > can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will try > > that > > > to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with M1/M2/M3, the > > same > > > way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already. > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > compatibility > > can be broken)? > > > > > > > [...] > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > >
Re: release of commons-imaging
It's just a label that says not 1.0 but really it seems like a label I see more often than alpha and beta these days. The main idea for me is that we should have a couple of releases IMO before we stamp a 1.0 and set a binary compatibility base line. I am happy to call releases alpha, beta, or milestones until then. Gary On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 10:01 AM Bruno Kinoshita wrote: > Hi Gary, > > What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 releases? > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API right, > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > > Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need one or > more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. But if we > can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will try that > to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with M1/M2/M3, the same > way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already. > > Thanks! > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 13:50, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > I would like to have an M1 release to push out the current code base. > > > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API right, > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > > > Gary > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 6:36 AM Bruno Kinoshita > > wrote: > > > > > BTW, let us know if there is any issue not resolved that you need/would > > > like to see in the next release, or if you can help testing/triaging > the > > > issues. > > > > > > On JIRA you can filter by the milestone/release. Check what's in 1.0 > and > > > 1.0-alphaN (where N may vary) and is open. Any help there would be > > > appreciated. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 12:30, Bruno Kinoshita > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi William, > > > > > > > > Not sure. I will start looking at the issues to see what is missing > for > > > > 1.0, but I suspect we are not ready for a final release yet. > > > > > > > > I think there was some discussion about an M1 or RC1 release of > sorts, > > > but > > > > I am out of the loop. The most important thing to know is that there > > is a > > > > version to be released soon (as soon as a volunteer has time to go > > > through > > > > issues and prepare it), but not the final 1.0 yet. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 12:00, William Borg Barthet < > > > > william.borgbart...@bloomreach.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi there, > > > >> > > > >> Apologies if this is already covered in another thread, but I can't > > seem > > > >> to > > > >> find it. Is a new release of Apache Commons Imaging imminent? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for your help > > > >> > > > >> William > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
Re: release of commons-imaging
> > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > compatibility > can be broken)? Sounds good to me too, at least users wouldn't expect any difference seeing a new alphaN+1 announced. But not sure if there won't be any differences with a milestone release (M is for milestone, right?) Cheers On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 16:11, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita > a écrit : > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 releases? > > > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API right, > > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > > > > > Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need one or > > more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. But if we > > can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will try > that > > to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with M1/M2/M3, the > same > > way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already. > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > compatibility > can be broken)? > > > > > [...] > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > >
Re: release of commons-imaging
Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita a écrit : > > Hi Gary, > > What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 releases? > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API right, > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > > Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need one or > more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. But if we > can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will try that > to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with M1/M2/M3, the same > way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already. Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that compatibility can be broken)? > > > [...] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: release of commons-imaging
Hi Gary, What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 releases? I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API right, > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need one or more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. But if we can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will try that to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with M1/M2/M3, the same way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already. Thanks! On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 13:50, Gary Gregory wrote: > I would like to have an M1 release to push out the current code base. > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API right, > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > Gary > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 6:36 AM Bruno Kinoshita > wrote: > > > BTW, let us know if there is any issue not resolved that you need/would > > like to see in the next release, or if you can help testing/triaging the > > issues. > > > > On JIRA you can filter by the milestone/release. Check what's in 1.0 and > > 1.0-alphaN (where N may vary) and is open. Any help there would be > > appreciated. > > > > Cheers > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 12:30, Bruno Kinoshita > > wrote: > > > > > Hi William, > > > > > > Not sure. I will start looking at the issues to see what is missing for > > > 1.0, but I suspect we are not ready for a final release yet. > > > > > > I think there was some discussion about an M1 or RC1 release of sorts, > > but > > > I am out of the loop. The most important thing to know is that there > is a > > > version to be released soon (as soon as a volunteer has time to go > > through > > > issues and prepare it), but not the final 1.0 yet. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 12:00, William Borg Barthet < > > > william.borgbart...@bloomreach.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi there, > > >> > > >> Apologies if this is already covered in another thread, but I can't > seem > > >> to > > >> find it. Is a new release of Apache Commons Imaging imminent? > > >> > > >> Thanks for your help > > >> > > >> William > > >> > > > > > >
Re: release of commons-imaging
I would like to have an M1 release to push out the current code base. I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API right, specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. Gary On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 6:36 AM Bruno Kinoshita wrote: > BTW, let us know if there is any issue not resolved that you need/would > like to see in the next release, or if you can help testing/triaging the > issues. > > On JIRA you can filter by the milestone/release. Check what's in 1.0 and > 1.0-alphaN (where N may vary) and is open. Any help there would be > appreciated. > > Cheers > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 12:30, Bruno Kinoshita > wrote: > > > Hi William, > > > > Not sure. I will start looking at the issues to see what is missing for > > 1.0, but I suspect we are not ready for a final release yet. > > > > I think there was some discussion about an M1 or RC1 release of sorts, > but > > I am out of the loop. The most important thing to know is that there is a > > version to be released soon (as soon as a volunteer has time to go > through > > issues and prepare it), but not the final 1.0 yet. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Bruno > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 12:00, William Borg Barthet < > > william.borgbart...@bloomreach.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi there, > >> > >> Apologies if this is already covered in another thread, but I can't seem > >> to > >> find it. Is a new release of Apache Commons Imaging imminent? > >> > >> Thanks for your help > >> > >> William > >> > > >
Re: release of commons-imaging
BTW, let us know if there is any issue not resolved that you need/would like to see in the next release, or if you can help testing/triaging the issues. On JIRA you can filter by the milestone/release. Check what's in 1.0 and 1.0-alphaN (where N may vary) and is open. Any help there would be appreciated. Cheers On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 12:30, Bruno Kinoshita wrote: > Hi William, > > Not sure. I will start looking at the issues to see what is missing for > 1.0, but I suspect we are not ready for a final release yet. > > I think there was some discussion about an M1 or RC1 release of sorts, but > I am out of the loop. The most important thing to know is that there is a > version to be released soon (as soon as a volunteer has time to go through > issues and prepare it), but not the final 1.0 yet. > > Cheers, > > Bruno > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 12:00, William Borg Barthet < > william.borgbart...@bloomreach.com> wrote: > >> Hi there, >> >> Apologies if this is already covered in another thread, but I can't seem >> to >> find it. Is a new release of Apache Commons Imaging imminent? >> >> Thanks for your help >> >> William >> >
Re: release of commons-imaging
Hi William, Not sure. I will start looking at the issues to see what is missing for 1.0, but I suspect we are not ready for a final release yet. I think there was some discussion about an M1 or RC1 release of sorts, but I am out of the loop. The most important thing to know is that there is a version to be released soon (as soon as a volunteer has time to go through issues and prepare it), but not the final 1.0 yet. Cheers, Bruno On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 12:00, William Borg Barthet < william.borgbart...@bloomreach.com> wrote: > Hi there, > > Apologies if this is already covered in another thread, but I can't seem to > find it. Is a new release of Apache Commons Imaging imminent? > > Thanks for your help > > William >
