Thanks! I will take this as you have completed your changes to your satisfaction, and perhaps can vote positively for a release. I will generate new images and update my vote request in the next few days (I happen to be traveling tomorrow so it will take me a little while to do this).
G. On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]>wrote: > Done: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1395896&view=rev > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1395925&view=rev > > Turns out that the ImageUtil.getInputStream() case doesn't apply to the > 1.5 branch. This was done after the branching. > > Thanks for your patience, > Jeremias Maerki > > > On 09.10.2012 06:51:32 Glenn Adams wrote: > > Jeremias, please go ahead and make these changes on the appropriate > > branches, i.e.: > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/commons/branches/commons-1_5 > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_1 > > > > Then I'll generate new images along with Vincent's suggestions and start > a > > new vote. > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > I'm happy to do the changes myself if nobody objects: > > > 1. Restore Glyphs.MAC_GLYPH_NAMES and deprecate it. > > > 2. Restore ImageUtil.getInputStream() and deprecate it. > > > 3. Cherry-pick the bugfix for the font auto-detection from trunk into > > > the 1.1 branch. > > > > > > As for "necessary": it's not if you always upgrade FOP.jar alongside > > > XGC.jar. But that may not always be the case. It's also difficult for > > > people to know which JAR works with which other JAR. I keep hearing > > > things like: which PDF Plug-in JAR do I have to use when I have FOP > 1.0? > > > And stuff like that. Also, XGC was intended to be usable and useful > > > without FOP. At any rate, the above changes restore full > > > backwards-compatibility of XGC 1.5 with XGC 1.0 to 1.4. And they will > > > avoid trouble for people using font auto-detection. > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > > > > > > > On 08.10.2012 14:52:26 Glenn Adams wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
