Jeremias Maerki wrote:
PeterThis is an idea I was also playing with. Avalon does that, too. But having multiple subprojects (that's what they are, not modules) brings
My sloppy use of the term "module".
it own difficulties. There are several pros and cons to this:In the case of common code, work on the old FOP would also be work on the new FOP, wouldn't it?
+ Encourages loose coupling and good design
+ Components that could in theory be used independently of FOP would get
a better visibility. + Reduces redundancy/code duplication
+ It is easier for newbies to start working on FOP because they don't
see a big bundle of code at once.
- dependencies get more difficult to handle
- encourages the development on the old FOP (which I don't think is a
It's definitely 1) more complicated, though not massively more so, and 2) requires closer liaison between committers on common code commits.I've found more pros than cons but I'm not sure I like it. Comments on your thoughts about branches: It sounds like the CVS manipulation gets to be a project of its own. If it's too complicated, some won't follow the rules, more work is generated for maintaining the codebase. That's the impression I get.
I concur with Oleg here. (Yes, really.) However, there are people who, as Victor has said, who find the all-or-nothing approach extremely difficult. If they can come up with practical ways of easing such difficulties, their suggestions should be carefully considered.FOP has lost a lot of its maintainers last year. New ones have been elected into the project but we're still in a resource shortage. I'm glad we have a few new candidates coming up. As we've discussed in August, I think it's VERY important to focus our work so we can get that redesign/rewrite phase behind us as fast as possible. Having to watch dependencies in this process is braking these efforts. If changes are being performed in the maintenance path that can later be ported to the redesigned FOP then I have nothing against it. Examples can be those given by Keiron. IMO font support is also pretty separate. Also, bugs should also be fixed if they are easy to fix. But please, let's put our efforts together to bring FOP to a version 1.0 as soon as possible. A lot is already there. We can build on that.
Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/
"Lord, to whom shall we go?"
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]