I think too we should do a maintenance release (from
'fop-0_20_2-maintain'
branch).
I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc.
Very Good!!
Then I suggest you set a timetable to do the release.
Tore has already committed a bunch of things. Batik has been updated to
Tore Engvig wrote:
[..]
The simple-page-master stuff that originated the whole maintenance release
and Karen's table suggestions are still left to be done (Christian?)
Yes, I hope to send the patches tomorrow (tuesday)
Tore
Cool. If there is nothing else code-wise, I'll stand by waiting to build the
release itself.
Arved
- Original Message -
From: Christian Geisert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: FOP conformance
Tore Engvig wrote
I'm glad to see this will be getting done. I had thought of doing it,
but I'm trying not to get distracted and to devote what little time I
have (which is likely not to improve for the next two weeks
unfortunately) to the new FOP.
Since I'm going to be talking about XSL-FO at the XML 2001
Christian Geisert wrote:
[SNIP]
I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain'
branch).
I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc.
I just checked in some patches that's been floating around into the
fop-0_20_2-maintain branch:
* Raymond
On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also.
There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges.
That's your choice. However, you should realize
Keiron Liddle wrote:
On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also.
There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges.
That's your choice.
Hi All:
Actually I was not implying or suggesting that you correct FOP and
make it work for just the page-reference property, that will be a minor
change on the great scheme of things, however if you have a number
of minor things, it eventually adds up to a lot of things.
On my particular
that'll
clear my head and allow me to get back into Java coding again.
Regards,
Arved Sandstrom
- Original Message -
From: Christian Geisert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: FOP conformance
Keiron Liddle wrote:
On 2001.11.30
At 1:19 PM -0400 11/30/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire point of
the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was well
understood before, or so I thought.
It was understood. However, there was an implicit
(and some others, such as Peter West) are
looking at the rewrite, so it's up to the rest of us to do stuff like this.
AHS
- Original Message -
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: FOP conformance
At 1:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FOP conformance
And between me and Christian I think we will see to it that this change,
at
least, gets done and is reflected in a maintenance release, which I
suggest
should appear NLT Dec 15.
In other words, I accept your argument (that was never in question).
It's
This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh
pointed it out also.
There is simply no point in fixing this until the
FOP rewrite emerges.
Arved Sandstrom
- Original Message -
From:
Carmelo Montanez
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 4:14
13 matches
Mail list logo
