Jeremias Maerki wrote:
(no replies to fop-dev as usual, vote happens on [EMAIL PROTECTED])

I'd like to start a vote on releasing:

Apache XML Graphics Commons 1.0 from the following branch:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/commons/branches/commons-1_0

and Apache FOP 0.92beta from the following branch:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-0_92

Commons:
The code is stable and does its job for Apache FOP. I cannot tell for
Batik, yet, but that shoudn't be an issue right now as Batik doesn't use
the code, yet. In order to release FOP we need to release Commons. There
are no known IP problems with the code in Commons AFAICT. The build is
properly set up including a distribution build. What's left to be done
is some last-minute testing and optionally improving the website a
little. I've set up a first version for a release checklist:
http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/Commons/ReleaseChecklist

FOP:
It's high time we do this. The code is stable and the known issues are
well documented. It's the first release that uses Commons and it has the
finalized API. From my POV, the latter is the only reason for the "beta"
tag. I think we need to make sure with another feedback cycle that our
decisions there were good. Otherwise, I consider FOP production-worthy
for PDF and PS output and for most use cases. IMO, the next release
after 0.92beta should be a 1.0 but that's a discussion for later. AFAICT
there are no known IP problems. All non-ALv2-licensed files are properly
tagged. We've been very strict following the CLA rules. What's left is
the usual batch of last-minute changes for the documentation plus
replacing the xmlgraphics-commons-snapshot.jar with the released version
as soon as it's done. That also means that Commons needs to be released
first. Release checklist:
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/release.html


Jeremias Maerki

Is there other than accidental co-ordination between commons, batik and fop? What guidance will there be for users in co-ordinating versions of the three?

Peter

Reply via email to