Hi Pascal I did not veto because releases may not be vetoed: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
On the version number: I don't know why you bring up 1.1 vs 2.0. If it was due to my comment on semantic versioning, that only applies to the trunk after 1.1. IMO, the next version (after 1.1) from trunk cannot be a 1.2, but must be a 2.0 because of the API changes. Jeremias Maerki On 08.10.2012 10:04:20 Pascal Sancho wrote: > Hi, > > +1 > Good job, Glenn (and *all* other contributors). > From my point of view, current 1.1 branch is ready for a production usage. > Calling it 1.1 or 2.0 is a little out of date for discussion, and I > wish to have a new FOP version for now. > > @JM: your comment is relevant, so why do you not express your vote, > your comment is like a veto (At least, it is what I understand), and > your argument is a good one. > > 2012/10/5 Glenn Adams <[email protected]>: > > Yes, please do check before you vote. > > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:15 PM, The Web Maestro > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> Thanks for this, Glenn! I'm not ready to VOTE on this yet (I want to > >> install and run first), but I'll take a look at it over the weekend! > >> > > -- > pascal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
