On 09.03.2005 14:14:16 Thomas DeWeese wrote: > Hi Jeremias, > > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > Thomas, I apologize for the apparently bad wording. It was not my > > intention to ignore your concerns. > > Ok. > > > There is no technical advantage. There are only technical disadvantages. > > The proposal came out of the desire not to release all control over that > > part. > > At some point we need to "sit down" and discuss exactly what code > we are talking about as I think we have different ideas on this > point (especially based on the XMLGraphics components thread).
Yes, we need to do that and then document it in the Wiki and then vote on it. > I can't do that this week but sometime next week it might be > good to do. No problem. > > Your counterproposal which I also put on the Wiki page is clearly > > better even if it means we lose overall control over this part. I'm > > pretty much the only one (besides Keiron, who's inactive, unfortunately) > > maintained the transcoders. But I wanted to give everyone a chance to > > say: No we can't do that. I totally screwed up and the meaning didn't > > get through. I'm sorry. > > There are clearly access issues that need to be addressed, > either by building trust (i.e. when you submit patches they are > applied in a timely manner) or by granting access and I am very > aware of this. I would hate to see this push against the correct > technical decision. I think with the split of the transcoder code into Batik-dependent and non-Batik-dependent code my concerns about access would be dealt with. Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
