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