Hi, Christian That would be much appreciated. As before, I can do the actual release itself once someone has notified me (read "the list") that they think the time is right.
As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire point of the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was well understood before, or so I thought. Making improvements to a pre-rewrite release such as FOP-0.20.2 should not use any cycles from the most productive coders we currently have on this project. IMHO. Which is why having others chip in is much appreciated. I can spare enough time to support commits to FOP-0.20.2, and minor work, since I am currently most definitely _not_ a productive coder. :-) I'd plead time pressure, which has been a major factor, but to be honest what I have really been much of this year is simply burnt out on Java. I am much less enthused about it than I was before, and for the past 2 years, after using it at work every single day (J2EE, J2ME) I hardly wanted to use it again in my own time. I say that simply so the other committers become aware of what the situation is. I have most definitely not lost interest in FOP or XSL-FO - I just need a rest from Java, rather badly. But in any case I can support minor work such as this maintenance release. I am currently working on a contract which has absolutely zero to do with Java and XML (it's SQL, C++, ASP), which is so refreshing that I cannot even begin to describe it. :-) Hopefully that'll clear my head and allow me to get back into Java coding again. Regards, Arved Sandstrom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Geisert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:27 PM Subject: Re: FOP conformance > Keiron Liddle wrote: > > > > On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > > At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > > This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also. > > > > > > There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges. > > > > > > > > > That's your choice. However, you should realize that this is going to > > > cause a lot of confusion for many users. It basically condemns FOP to > > > irrelevance until the rewrite is finished. I'm personally going to have > > > pull references to FOP out of the online XML Bible chapters and the next > > > edition of XML in a Nutshell, and switch my own toolchains over to > > > PassiveTeX. Although this is a small change conceptually, it is one that > > > affects pretty much *every* XSL-FO document anyone is ever going to > > > write. > > [..] > > > If someone else really thinks there are things that need doing then I > > strongly suggest that you get busy and do them. > > > > Does anyone else have any better suggestions? I would be glad to hear them. > > I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain' > branch). > > I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc. > > > > Regards, > > Keiron. > > Christian > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
