Sorry Mehdi, I realize that I started a new discussion.
Merging your development branch onto the trunk is not what puzzled me.
This has to be done as this.

What I said is: currently there are concurrent enhancements and releases.
So, between the 1st RC and the final release there can be a lot of
differences, witch is not --from my point of view-- a good thing.

IIRC, the 1.1 vote was for the 1.1RC1, not for the 1.1 branch witch
doesn't exist.
But I agree with you: it a such branch 1.1 should exist ;-)


2012/7/2 mehdi houshmand <med1...@gmail.com>:
> Excuse my ignorance here, but why do any changes to trunk affect 1.1RC*? The
> 1.1 branch has already been defined and voted upon, I don't see how any
> changes to trunk would affect it? I'm not very familiar with the FOPs
> releasing process so do excuse me.
>
> Mehdi
>
>
> On 2 July 2012 13:42, Pascal Sancho <psancho....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mehdi,
>>
>> I speak about post 1.1RC1.
>> Your merge will be against the trunk.
>> What about the 1.1RC2 or 1.1 final?
>> In the current usage, *all* FOP releases are tagged directly from
>> trunk (via a branch that is only to set FOP version and lib
>> dependencies).
>> So, every further RC or final releases are planed to be ma
>> 2012/7/2 mehdi houshmand <med1...@gmail.com>:
>> > Hi Pascal,
>> >
>> > I won't be merging this into anything other than trunk. Sorry, maybe I
>> > should have made that more explicit.
>> >
>> > Mehdi
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2 July 2012 12:32, Pascal Sancho <psancho....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> +1 for merging it to trunk.
>> >>
>> >> That said, I'm a little puzzled with the release process.
>> >> In my mind, a RC should come before a production release, freezing all
>> >> features.
>> >> Only bugfix should be permitted on RC.
>> >> Adding new feature to RC2 is a precedent that allows to add a new
>> >> feature after each RC, witch need to release a new... RC, etc.
>> >> I humbly suggest that the release process start with a 1.1 branch,
>> >> from witch RCx and final release will be tagged, that should allow to
>> >> continue merging branches onto trunk without any interaction on branch
>> >> release.
>> >> WDYT?
>> >>
>> >> 2012/7/2 Chris Bowditch <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> > On 26/06/2012 15:39, mehdi houshmand wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry, added "[VOTE]" to subject line... My bad
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > +1 from me. Good work Mehdi and Pete.
>> >> >
>> >> > Chris
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 26 June 2012 15:38, mehdi houshmand <med1...@gmail.com
>> >> >> <mailto:med1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     Hi All,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     I think we've got to the stage in the URI unification branch
>> >> >> where
>> >> >>     it's ready to be merged into trunk (not into 1.1RC1). I know
>> >> >> there
>> >> >>     have been proponents against the inclusion of this feature
>> >> >> and/or
>> >> >>     those who are concerned the wider implications as it means FOP
>> >> >> has
>> >> >>     fewer contingency methods when attempting file access. I'll try
>> >> >>     and explain how we've addressed those concerns as well as some
>> >> >> of
>> >> >>     the code improvements we've made.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     - Syntactic URI fall-back mechanisms - if a URI is syntactically
>> >> >>     erroneous i.e. contains white-space, "\" instead of "/", we do
>> >> >>     some validation on to mitigate some of the common mistakes.
>> >> >>     However, we don't allow for falling back to 'new File(".")' or
>> >> >>     "new URL(...).openStream()" since these can obviously cause
>> >> >>     clashes in a highly parallelised multi-tenant environment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     - Single FOP conf parse - Previously the renderer specific
>> >> >> regions
>> >> >>     of the FOP conf was being parsed on every run. This is costly to
>> >> >>     performance for the obvious reason, but as well as this, it
>> >> >> meant
>> >> >>     that font auto-detection was having to be executed on every run.
>> >> >>     The font-caching was created to mitigate some of those
>> >> >> performance
>> >> >>     costs, however, caching the FOP conf makes much more sense. It
>> >> >>     means we can get rid of the font-caching and don't have to to
>> >> >>     worry about performance but it also allowed to do a lot of clean
>> >> >>     up in the configuration packages. The renderer specific config
>> >> >> is
>> >> >>     also lazy loaded such that it is only parsed when the respective
>> >> >>     renderer is invoked, mitigating the one-off cost of parsing that
>> >> >>     config.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     - The environment profile - We've created an environment profile
>> >> >>     that abstracts the system in which FOP is invoked. This allows
>> >> >> us
>> >> >>     to programmatically enforce restrictions to, for example,
>> >> >>     font-caching and auto-detection since users may want to control
>> >> >>     this behaviour for any number of reasons.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     - Improved URI handling - because the URI resolution has been
>> >> >>     unified to a couple of classes, the behaviour is much easier for
>> >> >>     users to understand.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     - Consistent base directories - We've tried to ensure that base
>> >> >>     directories are consistent with FOP previously, the <base> and
>> >> >>     <font-base> still work as previously.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     There are however some outstanding TODOs that need to be
>> >> >>     addressed, however, though they are important, they don't need
>> >> >> to
>> >> >>     be all merged in at the same time. I will be working on these
>> >> >> and
>> >> >>     keep the community updated:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     TODOs//
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     - XGC and libraries - This is most likely the next project, we
>> >> >>     need to do the same in the XGC project and look at some of FOPs
>> >> >>     dependencies (Batik too!). The plan will be to move all the
>> >> >>     resource resolver classes to XGC since that is the parent
>> >> >> library
>> >> >>     so that they can be used though out the XMLGraphics libraries.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     - Improved MIME type resolution - currently FOP's file-type
>> >> >>     (file-MIME-type) is performed in-situ using file-name endings.
>> >> >>     This is, while working perfectly fine on a desktop environment,
>> >> >>     would be less than desirable if file-names were just hashes or
>> >> >> the
>> >> >>     like from a virtual file-system. We need to give the user the
>> >> >>     flexibility to define a file MIME type without forcing them to
>> >> >> put
>> >> >>     the file-ending in the URI.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     - Default handling in some of the Configurators - We have
>> >> >> improved
>> >> >>     the mechanism that handles default values in the configuration
>> >> >> as
>> >> >>     well as config injected via RendererOptions (on the FOUserAgent)
>> >> >>     and the FOP conf for PDF. However, time constraints haven't
>> >> >>     allowed us to do the same for PS and AFP, which would be nice to
>> >> >>     do. This isn't of utmost priority, but it would be nice to not
>> >> >>     have the "if (x != null)" peppered around the source
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     Sorry for the long email, I just thought it'd be a good time to
>> >> >>     expose some of the work we've been doing,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     Mehdi
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     P.S. More information can be found wiki under the developers
>> >> >>     section, it's currently down so I can't post a link.

-- 
pascal

Reply via email to