Sorry guys, I may have communicated myself poorly here. I didn't mean that this bug should block the 1.1 release, I didn't even mean to insinuate as such. I only meant that this behaviour is non-optimal and it would be quite a lot of work to back-date the patch to work on 1.1 and it's better to do that sooner rather than later.
This bug is long-standing and NOT new or recently introduced. Apologies for any misunderstandings. Mehdi On 5 September 2012 14:29, Jonathan Levinson < [email protected]> wrote: > We have customers who make heavy use of FOP TIFF. There are situations > where TIFF generation is a requirement. > > Kind Regards, > Jonathan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:14 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: 1.1 Release (was Vacation) > > > > On 05/09/2012 13:55, mehdi houshmand wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Apart from my initial e-mail there's nothing private in this e-mail > thread, so > > moving the discussion to fop-dev. > > > > > Bugzilla#53790 applies to FOP1.1. It's a blocking point if you're > > > working with TIFF, do you want me to create an analogous commit for > > > 1.1? I haven't had the time to apply it, now seems like a good > > > opportunity to ask whether I should. > > > > I don't believe that is a blocker to release. There are plenty of other > > compression types that do work. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Chris > > > >
