Clay Leeds wrote:

> Perhaps it was laziness (ouch! ;-p), but I'd like to think not. I spent
> 10-15 minutes looking on the site to determine where I could download
> the the 1.0Dev version to test with--actually, I've gone searching a
> *bunch* of times, only to get frustrated and "come back later" to find
> it. Truth is, I didn't know *what* to look for and the term "snapshot"
> didn't come to mind...
>
> Anyway, I will be submitting a [PATCH] to change the download page to
> highlight "FOP 1.0DR1 Snapshot" shortly. However, I might also modify
> the page to indicate the following links/headings:
>
> * Binary or Source?
> * Current Release Binary Download
> * Current and Development Release Source Downloads
>
> I'll then change the content of the "Current and Development Release
> Source Downloads" section accordingly:
>
> > <snip/>
> >>
> >> MODIFIED:
> >> * [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
> >>    from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
> >>    approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
> >>    time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
> >> are
> >>    made only for the "HEAD" branch.
>
> >> * [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
> >>    from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
> >>    approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
> >>    time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
> >> are
> >>    made only for the "HEAD" branch.
>
> * [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
>     from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
>     approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
>     time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
> are
>     made only for the "HEAD" branch of [a
> href="http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-fop/
> ?only_with_tag=HEAD"]CVS[/a].
>
> I'd also like to standardize on what we'll be calling this on the site.
> Here are the contestants I'm aware of:
>
> Redesign
> TRUNK

+1

> HEAD
> FOP 1.0Dev
> FOP-1.0Dev
> FOP1.0Dev
> FOP 1.0DR1
> FOP-1.0DR1
> FOP1.0DR1
>
> (Personally, I like "FOP-1.0DR1" so that's what I'll use in my [PATCH].
> I'm not calling for a vote--a) I don't think I can call a VOTE yet; b)
> does this need a VOTE?--but it would be good to know that everyone's on
> the same page... ;-p)
>
> > +1, although I never really experienced problems with it, I can
> > imagine that
> > the average FOP-noob gets a bit confused by all this name-juggling...
>
> Having used FOP for over a year, I don't consider myself an average
> FOP-noob, in spite of the fact that I have trouble keeping the names
> straight. ;-p
>
> > The term "Redesign" will become obsolete as soon as 1.0 gets released.
> >
> > (FYI: "FOP-1.0Dev" turns up on the command line as version indicator )
>
> Obsolescence. Too true! Hehehe! Anyway, I thought I'd seen FOP-1.0Dev
> somewhere!

On the naming issue, I think it is worth distinguishing between 1) branch
names, 2) tags for those branches, and 3) version IDs. What we are really
naming here is a branch, and the tags and versions should not be confused
with it. Our "maintenance" branch is tagged "fop-0_20_2-maintain" from which
we get version 0.20.5. Within CVS, the trunk branch is tagged "HEAD" from
which we have no current versions. Of the choices given, only "trunk" and
"head" make any sense to me. I have a very strong dislike for naming it
1.0_anything or any other transitory name like "redesign". (I have no
problem with using these terms as we have, but dislike them as permanent
names). I especially dislike 1.0_anything as I don't have any reason to
think that we are working on 1.0 yet.

Yes, trying to decide what the name should be was another reason I never
tackled this job.

Victor Mote

Reply via email to