I misunderstood the implications. Thanks for the clarification. Kind Regards, Jonathan
> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: 1.1 Release (was Vacation) > > On 05/09/2012 14:29, Jonathan Levinson wrote: > > We have customers who make heavy use of FOP TIFF. There are situations > where TIFF generation is a requirement. > > Sure, and I didn't suggest otherwise. TIFF generation works in most scenarios. > Only JPEG compression is broken. If your clients are using that then surely > you > would have reported the bug before now. I stand by my opinion that this is > not a > blocker for the 1.1 release. > > Thanks, > > Chris > > > > > 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 > >> > > > >
