Hi Glenn,

1.1rc1 sounds good for me.
If further RC is required, the only final digit needs to be incremented.
In addition, this version name indicates by itself that this version should not be used in prod.


Le 30/05/2012 16:40, Glenn Adams a écrit :
sounds reasonable, but I have a couple of questions on logistics:

  * the steps outlined at
    http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/release.html don't really
    cover handling of a candidate release
  * what version # should be used, 1.09? 1.1rc1?
  * should this version # appear in the docs, code, or should 1.1 be used?
  * anything else?


On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Chris Bowditch
<bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com <mailto:bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

    On 30/05/2012 08:36, Glenn Adams wrote:

    Hi Glenn,


        It would seem that to cut a FOP 1.1 release, we will need to do
        a simultaneous XGC dot release as well, since the former depends
        on unreleased changes in the latter. Is this correct?


    yes that is correct. FOP is highly dependent on XGC and there have
    been many changes to both since FOP 1.0. We will need to release XGC
    1.5 first and then FOP 1.1. I propose that we first build Release
    Candidates for both and then wait 2-3 weeks for feedback before
    releasing final versions of both.

    Thanks,

    Chris



--
Pascal

Reply via email to