I've taken a glance at all the legal information that is around. Here are my findings:
- NOTICE should be updated to conform to http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html The second paragraph should be ("at" instead of "by"): This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). - The license for pdf-transcoder.jar is still 1.1, but should be 2.0. - I think it would be good to note in the readme for pdf-transcoder.jar that it was derived from the FOP 0.90alpha1 release. This is otherwise not apparent, only when you go checking the SVN log: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlgraphics/batik/trunk/lib/pdf-transcoder.jar?view=log - The license info should always indicate the right license version. "Apache License" is not enough. Please check all the readme files in lib. - xml-stylebook and crimson are ALv1.1, not 2.0 (as implied by pointing to LICENSE in the root directory). Better just list the ALv1.1. - The README for xml-stylebook should point to http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xml/stylebook/trunk/ ----- Cameron, would it make sense to create a branch for Batik with the goal of finishing the integration of XML Graphics Commons (irrespective of the Batik release)? That way I don't have to redo the adjustments you had to make and therefore I can more easily help you figure out what going wrong. Finally, are the problems apparent in any case or are there only special cases where the problem shows? Which are those? Thanks! On 22.01.2007 09:40:17 Cameron McCormack wrote: > Hi everyone. > > I’ve finished all the work I wanted to get done on Batik before the > release. I was planning on writing some regard tests for the animation > support, but I’m not sure I can be bothered at the moment and I don’t > want to hold the release back. I did run all of the animation tests > from the SVG WG’s latest test suite, and nearly all pass (just some > missing hyperlinking functionality). > > Due to some rendering problems using the XML Graphics Commons classes, I > propose we postpone Batik’s migration to using them until after the > release. > > Thomas and Dieter, could you run regard on your systems to see that > there’s nothing that’s been overlooked? I will do so also. I don’t > think there are any more low-hanging fruits in Bugzilla, but have a skim > through them in case I missed something. > > Given the number of changes since the last release, would it be wise to > make a release candidate that people can test, before the proper 1.7 > release? If so, how long for? > > Thanks, > > Cameron Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
