Jeremias Maerki wrote:

Another thing, that I'd like to bring up. We're approaching a state
where FOP Trunk code is usable for more serious use cases. The important
FOs are all implemented. In the past, we talked about making 1.0 meet
XSL 1.0 Basic Conformance. I believe to do that would be bad for the
project in its current state. We can't wait much longer and we
desperately need to attract active contributors. I don't mean that the
first release has to be a 1.0. But IMO we should get close to that.
Maybe call the first unstable preview release 0.9pr1. Once we have a
stable code base with a reasonable feature set and updated documentation
we should IMO call it 1.0 and go on from there.

I totally agree that a release is necessary to move the project on and since most of the functionality of 0.20.5 has been restored in Head plus keep-* property support I feel the code is ready for a release. Also I agree with your reasoning that it should be called 0.9 to make it clear that there are still some limitations to be addressed.

I believe that we could do an initial unstable preview release with big
disclaimers all over the place in about two months. My next tasks are to
update the PostScript renderer and to make sure that PDF, PS and Java2D
output is more or less on the same level. After that we should do a
testing/bugfixing round to make the overall package real-world-usable.

I wouldnt go as far as calling the code totally unstable! I have used it for some documents and the output looks okay. However, we should call it rc or pr as you suggest. I thought the Apache convention was 'rc', but I have no real preference. Just so long as its clear that we expect to find a few bugs and fix them before a production ready release is done.


Reply via email to