I agree about consistency w requirements... Perhaps one additional
release req 1.4, then move to 1.5 for the next release. I don't have
any real energy about whether the 1.0 should be 1.4 or 1.5, however...
I do agree that there should be a significant version change
signalling the move from 1.4 to 1.5. Perhaps 0.96 (1.4) and 1.0 (1.5)?

If FOP is going to switch anyway, is there a compelling reason not to
req Java 1.6 instead of 1.5 for FOP 1.0 (or whatever version makes the
jump)? Would that lock out a huge number of our audience? Would
requiring 1.6 mean any significant performance or other benefit?

Clay

On 8/22/09, Max Berger <m...@berger.name> wrote:
> Dear Fop-Devs,
>
> since I am one of the people cited for moving forward to 1.5, I just
> want to throw my 2 cts in the mix:
>
> I would prefer a new release first, and then moving to 1.5.
>
> Rationale:
>
> 1) Retroweaving works, but there will be some bugs which will have to
> be ironed out and tested. The last release (0.95) has been done quite
> a long time back, and the next release will take even longer when a
> new "feature" (1.5) is added.
>
> 2) Since the 0.9x releases are "test-releases" towards 1.0, they
> should have the same features / requirements.
>
> 3) The next release (1.0.9x ? 1.9x?) could then depend on 1.5, whereas
> the 1.0 branch could stay on 1.4
>
> As an example from another apache project: Maven moved from 2.1.0 to
> 2.2.0 rather than 2.1.x because they now require java 1.5 and did not
> want to make this a "minor" upgrade"
>
> Max
>
> 2009/8/20 Simon Pepping <spepp...@leverkruid.eu>:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Chris Bowditch wrote:
>>> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>>> >There we go again. ;-) I can understand the wishes and cravings of the
>>> >developers (feeling them myself), but as I've said before: such a
>>> >decision should be made with the user community in the back, i.e. there
>>> >should be another user survey to gather current data. Just because Sun
>>> >EOLs a Java version doesn't mean that everyone can suddenly just do the
>>> >switch. So why don't those who want this change so badly do that little
>>> >survey so we have the data on an informed decision?
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I'm not so against this idea 1 year further on but I still have
>>> concerns that we would force x% of users to stay on 0.95 if we do
>>> this. I agree with Jeremias' proposal to run a survey on fop-users
>>> for a couple of weeks to get some hard facts to help make an
>>> informed decision.
>>>
>>> Also, I think it is something that could wait until after the long
>>> promised 1.0 release. With the changing IPD feature being one of the
>>> last major features of 0.20.x missing from 0.9x that is now
>>> available we should consider doing the v1.0 release and then if the
>>> survey shows the number of 1.4 and earlier users to be very low then
>>> we should do the switch.
>>
>> I agree that we should proceed with a 1.0 release.
>>
>> I can also agree with releasing it compliant with Java 1.4.
>>
>> I note, however, that the methods I removed were several methods in
>> class Character which are very useful in character handling, such as
>> the method Character.toChars(int), which is the main method to convert
>> an integer to an array of chars. That means that for Unicode values
>> above 0xFFFF there is no good method to turn the value into a char[]
>> or String. Also Characters.toLowerCase, toUpperCase, toTitleCase,
>> getType, $UnicodeBlock. For a text handling application in 2009 that
>> is a bit painful.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> --
>> Simon Pepping
>> home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
>>
>


-- 
Regards,

The Web Maestro
-- 
<the.webmaes...@gmail.com> - <http://ourlil.com/>
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet

Reply via email to