Hi,

Like Clay, I don't want to block the merge process, I just want to know
about the future of Batik (more precisely the FOP dependency on it).
So, consider that my vote is +1.

Great job, Vincent.


2013/8/27 Clay Leeds <the.webmaes...@gmail.com>

> Well, I don't want to be a stock in the mud so here's my unconditional +1!
> ;-)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Clay
>
> --
>
> "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
> - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Robert Meyer <rme...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> I think this sounds ok based on what Luis is saying.
>
> > Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:25:03 +0100
> > From: bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com
> > To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Merge Temp_FopFontsForSVG into trunk
> >
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > On 21/08/2013 11:08, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> > > This work allows to directly use FOP-configured fonts for SVG images,
> > > instead of trying to find, via AWT, equivalent fonts installed on the
> > > system, and then mapping them to FOP fonts when generating the output.
> > >
> > > Please note that this introduces a dependency on the trunk version of
> > > Batik, with the patch from BATIK-1041 applied. That means that before
> > > releasing the next version of FOP, a new version of Batik will have to
> > > be released first.
> > >
> > > This vote will run until Monday, 26 August 11:00 UTC.
> > >
> > > +1 from me.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I also share the concerns of Pascal and Clay. However, I really see that
> > as a separate discussion that the PMC needs to have about the future of
> > Batik. I've been meaning to start it but I'm really busy ATM. In the
> > meantime there is a practical solution to the dependency issue as
> > mentioned by Luis.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Vincent
> > >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris
>
>


-- 
pascal

Reply via email to