My actual opinion is not politically correct, so I’ll try to stick to
constructive comments.

Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On a serious note (as opposed to my outburst on fop-users), I think we
should really discuss the FOP release plan which we haven't updated in a
while. I would hate to see FOP in 0.x mode after 10 years of existence.
Let's assume 0.20.5 was actually FOP 1.0, and FOP 0.95 was actually FOP

Seen from today’s point of view, I very much agree with that.
Actually the first release from the re-design branch (0.90 alpha 1)
should have been called 1.0alpha, 0.91beta should have been called
1.0beta, 0.92beta 1.0RC and 0.93 1.0, or something like that.

How about calling the next version 2.009 (to be released in early

Hmmm... no. Too many digits after the dot IMO, and not meaningful
enough. If we were to release another version in, say, September, how
would we call it? When the year is used in the versioning scheme, it’s
usually in the form of year.month (Ubuntu, AMD Catalyst drivers, etc.).

Moreover, it can only puzzle users I think. We’ve used <1.0 version
numbers for all those years, we’ve started a whole series of 0.9x
releases, and all of a sudden we jump to >2.0?! With no significant
changes from 0.95, moreover. They will wonder what is that revolution
that they missed and that justifies such a jump.

The ‘least worse’ way to stop the <1.0 curse, IMO, is to actually call
the next release 1.0, with the following message: the re-design branch
has been worked on for quite some time now, it brings many new features
and improvements compared to the old 0.20.5; it’s considered stable
enough to be used in production and 1.0 is used to acknowledge that.

The work on changing IPD is likely to bring major changes to the layout
engine, which will justify a 1.5 or 2.0 version. Once serious work has
been done on optimization, a 2.5 or 3.0 can be released. Once
significant features from XSL-FO 1.1 have been added, 3.5 or 4.0. And so

After all, there are many open-source projects that have been around for
years, and whose version numbers are still in 1.x or 2.x.x.

Skip 1.0 entirely since that would only let the expectations rise
into the sky. FOP had a major redesign which warrants at least a version
jump of one major version. Not calling it 2.0 means it's not a first
release from a fresh development branch. That will carry the message
along that FOP is stable and usable in a productive environment. Hell,
it's used in production by so many people for so many years.
OhpointXitis is really bad.

I know we still have about one item left on our pre-1.0 list:
But that's still going to take a while. I want to revisit this list and
see what today's view is.

Flame away.

Jeremias Maerki


Reply via email to