I don't know how much my input matters here, but having spent quite a while in the fonts packages I concur with Jeremias, putting MAC_GLYPH_NAMES back in, doesn't have a major impact.
I should note, for future, we need to be more clear as to what constitutes the public API. It may be prudent to do with XGC what we did with FOP and make the "public" API explicit to all devs. Simply using the "public" access modifier doesn't make something part of the public API. Conversely, as Jeremias has pointed out, we have to be diligent and open when making changes to the API. Mehdi On 8 October 2012 14:40, Chris Bowditch <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 08/10/2012 13:52, Glenn Adams wrote: > > Hi Glenn, > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Jeremias Maerki <d...@jeremias-maerki.ch >> >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<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: > general-unsubscribe@**xmlgraphics.apache.org<general-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: > general-help@xmlgraphics.**apache.org<general-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org> > >
