I misunderstood the implications. Thanks for the clarification.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:49 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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
> would have reported the bug before now. I stand by my opinion that this is
> not a
> blocker for the 1.1 release.
> > Kind Regards,
> > Jonathan
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:14 AM
> >> To: email@example.com
> >> Cc: priv...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> >> 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