Re: RE: Re: release of commons-imaging

2024-03-22 Thread Gary Gregory
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

RE: RE: Re: release of commons-imaging

2024-03-22 Thread William Borg Barthet
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

RE: Re: release of commons-imaging

2024-03-06 Thread William Borg Barthet
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

Re: release of commons-imaging

2024-02-28 Thread Gary Gregory
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

Re: release of commons-imaging

2024-02-28 Thread Gary Gregory
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

Re: release of commons-imaging

2024-02-28 Thread Bruno Kinoshita
> > 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

Re: release of commons-imaging

2024-02-28 Thread Gilles Sadowski
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. > > >

Re: release of commons-imaging

2024-02-28 Thread Bruno Kinoshita
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

Re: release of commons-imaging

2024-02-28 Thread Gary Gregory
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

Re: release of commons-imaging

2024-02-28 Thread Bruno Kinoshita
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

Re: release of commons-imaging

2024-02-28 Thread Bruno Kinoshita
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