On 08/10/2012 13:52, Glenn Adams wrote:
Hi Glenn,
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]>wrote:
I don't think these changes constitute substantive changes. They do not
add new functionality or otherwise create a significant risk for
instability. They are merely bugfixes. The major motivation for fixing
these IMO is in making everyone's life easier: Users will download FOP
1.1 and run into font auto-detection problems and others will have to
help them.
Thanks for preparing the release. I have downloaded it and run a basic
FO and all appears to be working ok.
I concur with your understanding that we were only planning to fix low
risk critical bugs between 1.1rc and 1.1 final. To my recollection the
only bug I am aware of being fixed was in the pdf-plugin to make it
compatible with 1.1. We probably need to release the plug-in too soon
after FOP and XGC.
It's a matter of degree. It is substantive in the sense that it is a code
change [1]. It is also true that it is a very trivial change, and one that
I'm completely fine with making at this stage.
I'm ok with bringing in bug fixes to 1.1 final if they are critical and
low risk. It just a shame this was bought up so late in the release process.
Is this change sufficient to address your concerns about the usability of
1.1? Do you also believe that a reversion to a change on Glyphs.MAC_GLYPH_NAMES
is necessary? If so, could you provide a minimal patch that makes what you
believe is needed?
If others do not object, then I could apply [1] and this additional patch
and upload a new set of images.
It's fine with me if you think it is critical and low risk. Otherwise it
should probably wait until the next major release.
Thanks,
Chris
[1]
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fonts/truetype/TTFFile.java?r1=1356456&r2=1356455&pathrev=1356456
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
