Am 11.08.2014 um 18:59 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <[email protected]>:

> Hi,
> 
> 
> Am 11.08.2014 18:35, schrieb John Hewson:
>> Andreas,
>> 
>> What I had been thinking was that now that 2.0 is getting closer that me 
>> wight want to do less with 1.8, but I agree with you that we don’t need any 
>> fixed rules, staying flexible is better. It sounds like we might want to 
>> think about some guidelines for 1.8 after 2.0 is released to avoid a 
>> “Windows XP” situation, but we’re not at that point yet.
> Yes, good point. Hopefully 1.8.7 will be the last 1.8 release before 2.0 :-)
> 

As 2.0 breaks the current API (which is intended) I suspect that there will be 
bugfixes for 1.8 needed for some time.

>> Cheers
>> 
>> -- John
> 
> BR
> Andreas Lehmkühler
> 
>> 
>> On 11 Aug 2014, at 03:57, Andreas Lehmkühler <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>> John Hewson <[email protected]> hat am 7. August 2014 um 18:48 geschrieben:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps we should stop adding new features to 1.8, and only fix the most
>>>> problematic bugs?
>>> We never were that strict about the contents of a bugfix release in the 
>>> past.
>>> We always added some improvements or new features. Most of them were small
>>> and/or hadn't a huge impact on the code/functionality. Some were added
>>> because people were eagerly waiting for them. There aren't any rules what
>>> to add or not and IMHO we don't need any.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> BR
>>> Andreas Lehmkühler
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- John
>>>> 
>>>>> On 7 Aug 2014, at 09:11, Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>>> but after I've ported the GSoC2014-improved shading package to 1.8
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tilman
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am 07.08.2014 12:35, schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> there is already a number of solved issues and I guess it's
>>>>>> time for a new bugfix release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm working on PDFBOX-2250 and I'd like to finish that
>>>>>> first but how about a new release in 2 or 3 weeks from now?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> BR
>>>>>> Andreas Lehmkühler
>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to