At 07:06 PM 8/1/01 -0500, Weiqi Gao wrote:
>On 01 Aug 2001 20:28:44 -0300, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> Steve Coffman is getting Mark Lillywhite's patch put in place. We'll
>> also make sure that all code-formatting is OK after that committing
>> happens...
>> I expect to work on the release at the start of the weekend, and
>> have FOP 0.20.0 up in CVS NLT than say Aug 5. Fotis, is that enough
>> time for docs?
>If possible, can we stick to some sort of naming rules for the releases?
>The last four releases have been names 0.17.0, 0.18.0, 0.18.1-DEV and
>The 0.19.0-CVS release is extremly confusing for us, since we started
>using 0.19.0-CVS (the snapshot) after some of the table bugs have been
>fixed in CVS.  And by the time the 0.19.0-CVS (the release) came along,
>we mixed up the two.  Ironically, we are still using a snapshot version
>because the 0.19.0-CVS (the release) has the non-breaking table problem.

0.20.0 seems to make the most sense. I agree, CVS doesn't compute, because 
_everything_ is CVS. I think I put in DEV because I wanted to highlight 
that, but then arguments were advanced against that one, too. So just the 
version number it shall be, unless there are any reasonable counter-arguments.


Fairly Senior Software Type
e-plicity (
Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to