On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Chris Bowditch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Glenn, > > The original plan was for Robert Meyer to handle the release. I've moved > him to a different project for a while, so I then decided Vincent should be > our volunteer ;-) > > However, it came to light that there is an unwritten policy that releases > can't depend on snapshots of other projects. So that's causing us a problem > for the pdf-plugin and font merging enhancement, which is one of several > key features in this release. The PMC needs to decide if a snapshot > dependency is acceptable or whether we should wait for PDFBox v2.0 to be > released. > Is there a schedule (tentative or otherwise) for releasing PDFBox 2.0? > > Vincent is currently looking additional bugs to fix before the release. > Can we continue this discussion on general@ please, since this affects > all projects, not just FOP > Sure. > > Thanks, > > Chris > > On 16/07/2014 18:33, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Vincent Hennebert <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 16/07/14 17:42, Simon Steiner wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I switched fop back to fontbox 1.8, so its only the pdfplugin >> that uses 2.0 and the user would delete 1.8 jar if copying >> pdfplugin to fop. >> >> >> Thanks Simon. That’s great because that means that we can start the >> release process of FOP as soon as we are ready. >> >> >> It would be nice to share the following info: >> >> * who is going to take the lead on performing the release? >> * what is a tentative schedule for release, e.g., when should last >> changes be integrated? >> * what additional integrations (if known) are planned before release? >> >> >> >> >> Vincent >> >> >> Thanks >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>] >> Sent: 16 July 2014 12:56 >> To: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: New FOP Release [was: Re: FOP Release Automation] >> >> Hi, >> >> On 15/07/14 16:53, Clay Leeds wrote: >> >> On Jul 15, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Glenn Adams <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I suppose it depends on whether or not we need to hack >> perl to use the facility. If there is any alternative >> that doesn't use perl, then that would be preferable. >> >> Frankly, I've never been happy with the new MD based >> documentation, though Clay has spent an inordinate >> amount of time tweaking it. >> >> >> Yeah... It's not my favorite either, but at least edits >> are pretty quick, saved to SVN and we've got a solution to >> incorporate javadoc, etc. >> >> In the meantime, please let me know when we're ready to >> update the >> documentation for the Release. It doesn't take me very >> long to go >> through the code to make these types of batch edits. >> >> <snip/> >> >> Clay, your offer to help would be greatly appreciated! >> >> And since you’re mentioning it, maybe it’s time to think about >> making a new release of FOP. Although now that the font >> merging code has been merged to trunk, and introduces a >> dependency on FontBox 2.0.0, we would have to wait that >> FontBox 2.0.0 is released first. Or adapt the code to keep the >> former 1.8.5 dependency (or the newer 1.8.6 released version). >> >> In the meantime, can anybody think of features that should >> definitely be implemented before the release, or bugs fixed? >> Remember that due to API changes, that release will have to be >> called 2.0. >> >> Thanks, >> Vincent >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
