?
Not only that. We need a Wiki page listing all issues everyone wants to
see fixed/handled before a 1.0 release. We can then decide on which
subset we are really going to process. Otherwise, we won't finish before
2007.
There was http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ReleasePlanning. I
suggest we
On 19.06.2006 11:35:18 Chris Bowditch wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 18.06.2006 13:26:00 Manuel Mall wrote:
snip/
Calling a release 1.0 is IMO quite a significant step which shouldn't
been taken lightly. What we are saying in doing so is: Here is
something we believe is ready
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
snip/
Please can you say where you think 0.92beta is behind 0.20.5? The only
issue that I'm aware of is the change of IPD mid-page-sequence.
I've listed them in http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ReleasePlanning
I was a little surprised. It's not just 2 or 3
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Ok, if we want that 1.0 won't be out before September.
Too bad. As already mentioned, changing IPD page masters worked
reasonably well in 0.20.5 and I think people will expect this to
work in a 1.0 release too.
OTOH, if the frequency of questions on the lists are taken
On 18.06.2006 13:26:00 Manuel Mall wrote:
On Sunday 18 June 2006 18:53, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I just realized we should think about the right moment to release
1.0. I guess the number of fixed bugs would suggest a new release
rather sooner than later. I originally thought about going
On 18.06.2006 22:54:41 J.Pietschmann wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I just realized we should think about the right moment to release 1.0.
I think 1.0 should implement page masters with different
body width in the same page sequence.
Ok, if we want that 1.0 won't be out before September
better done after the next release (or on a separate branch). I think
it would be good to do the 1.0 release some time in July, if
possible.
That sounds OK.
Judging the quality of the FOP trunk code base is much harder. For
example, we still get reports of NPEs and AIOOBs. We
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 18.06.2006 13:26:00 Manuel Mall wrote:
snip/
Calling a release 1.0 is IMO quite a significant step which shouldn't
been taken lightly. What we are saying in doing so is: Here is
something we believe is ready for production use.
Yes, but neither should we put
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 18.06.2006 20:50:31 Simon Pepping wrote:
snip/
So maybe we need a feature freeze and bug fixing period?
Not only that. We need a Wiki page listing all issues everyone wants to
see fixed/handled before a 1.0 release. We can then decide on which
subset we
I just realized we should think about the right moment to release 1.0. I
guess the number of fixed bugs would suggest a new release rather sooner
than later. I originally thought about going for an ApacheCon release
but I didn't have enough time. Now, Vincent is working on floats
On Sunday 18 June 2006 18:53, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I just realized we should think about the right moment to release
1.0. I guess the number of fixed bugs would suggest a new release
rather sooner than later. I originally thought about going for an
ApacheCon release but I didn't have enough
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 07:26:00PM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote:
On Sunday 18 June 2006 18:53, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
look a little deeper into the issue. I suspect both items will
require substantial changes in the layout engine which are probably
better done after the next release
of trunk elements.
...a Batik release didn't involve a FOP release until now which is
something that must change. At some time in the future.
I'm working on a project that uses 0.20.5, batik 1.6 and, now, the fop
and batik trunk code. It looks as though I may have to unwind the batik
trunk code
equal
fop'.
The current split of fop and commons has nothing to do with batik, it
seems. I was working on the assumption that the creation of commons
implied the three-way compatibility of trunk elements.
...a Batik release didn't involve a FOP release until now which is
something
the following branch:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-0_92
Commons:
The code is stable and does its job for Apache FOP. I cannot tell for
Batik, yet, but that shoudn't be an issue right now as Batik doesn't use
the code, yet. In order to release FOP we need to release
On 12.04.2006 13:55:44 Peter West wrote:
snip/
Is there other than accidental co-ordination between commons, batik and
fop?
Accidental? ATM, no coordination is required for releasing Commons as
Batik doesn't use it, yet. The plan for XML Graphics Commons on the Wiki
is still valid and
Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
We originally wanted to do a release much earlier but I was always in
the middle of something and I think I'm simply the only one who can
allocate enough time to do an actual release (prove me wrong, please). I
I might have some time on the next weekend.
(So let's make
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
[snip]
+1 to a new beta release, even if the whitespace still isn't
resolved completely.
J.Pietschmann
On Friday 07 April 2006 23:13, Manuel Mall wrote:
On Friday 07 April 2006 19:14, Manuel Mall wrote:
On Friday 07 April 2006 16:06, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 06.04.2006 20:50:18 Peter S. Housel wrote:
snip/
Committed my changes.
As far as I can tell the various text-align property values
On Thursday 06 April 2006 23:09, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
We originally wanted to do a release much earlier but I was always in
the middle of something and I think I'm simply the only one who can
allocate enough time to do an actual release (prove me wrong,
please). I think I can make time next
Clay Leeds wrote:
I'd like to see a release as well.
But is this a new issue? Has it been resolved?
No :(
On Apr 6, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Peter S. Housel wrote:
WDYT?
From my perspective as a user, I think it's essential to fix the
problem with preserving whitespace after a newline
On 06.04.2006 20:50:18 Peter S. Housel wrote:
WDYT?
From my perspective as a user, I think it's essential to fix the problem
with preserving whitespace after a newline (for pre-style output) before
doing another release.
-Peter-
Yeah, that's an annoying problem. A quick fix may
On Friday 07 April 2006 16:06, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 06.04.2006 20:50:18 Peter S. Housel wrote:
WDYT?
From my perspective as a user, I think it's essential to fix the
problem
with preserving whitespace after a newline (for pre-style output)
before doing another release
release.
-Peter-
If it's resolved, then I'd give my +1 to a PMC VOTE. If not, then
can it be resolved quickly? If not, then I'd say '+1'.
This problem cannot be resolved quickly. It requires an adjustment
to the Knuth algorithm used for generating Break Possibilities.
Simon P has
On Apr 6, 2006, at 17:09, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
We originally wanted to do a release much earlier ...
Yep, and my vote remains the same as then: +1
The white-space bugger is a tough nut to crack once and for all, but
if there is an easy way to solve this temporarily, I'd agree
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 04:55:04PM +0100, Chris Bowditch wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
We originally wanted to do a release much earlier but I was always in
the middle of something and I think I'm simply the only one who can
allocate enough time to do an actual release (prove me wrong
We originally wanted to do a release much earlier but I was always in
the middle of something and I think I'm simply the only one who can
allocate enough time to do an actual release (prove me wrong, please). I
think I can make time next week to do a release of FOP and XML Graphics
Commons. FOP
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
We originally wanted to do a release much earlier but I was always in
the middle of something and I think I'm simply the only one who can
allocate enough time to do an actual release (prove me wrong, please). I
think I can make time next week to do a release of FOP
WDYT?
From my perspective as a user, I think it's essential to fix the problem
with preserving whitespace after a newline (for pre-style output) before
doing another release.
-Peter-
On Apr 6, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Chris Bowditch wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
We originally wanted to do a release much earlier but I was always in
the middle of something and I think I'm simply the only one who can
allocate enough time to do an actual release (prove me wrong,
please). I
think I
I've got customers asking when the next release is planned. I think it
would be good to think about it. How about targetting for the end of
February or beginning of March? Is that enough to considerably improve
the whitespace handling situation? Another question will be what to call
the next
On Feb 2, 2006, at 15:19, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I've got customers asking when the next release is planned. I think it
would be good to think about it. How about targetting for the end of
February or beginning of March? Is that enough to considerably improve
the whitespace handling situation
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:43:29AM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'd like to call for a PMC vote to release FOP 0.91beta from this newly
created branch. (Votes to [EMAIL PROTECTED], please)
+1 from me.
Simon
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
Thomas,
I've just tried to implement that approach you outlined but the problem
is that this init() method is not accepted by the compiler. You can't
access member variables before Object's constructor is called. I guess
we'll have to wait until the next Batik release to fix this. Or did you
I like Simon's proposal of calling the new release 0.91beta. The
increase in the version number shows progress towards 1.0 and beta
gives an indicator about stability. FOP is certainly more stable and
usable now than an alpha level software. On the other side it is not
quite ready for production
text. It appears that the main problem with Batik 1.6 is
that it calls 'registerBridges' in the base class constructor before
the subclass can 'record' it's updated bridges.
I just checked and the Batik 1.6 release does _not_ do this,
it calls 'registerSVGBridges' well after
is
that it calls 'registerBridges' in the base class constructor before
the subclass can 'record' it's updated bridges.
I just checked and the Batik 1.6 release does _not_ do this,
it calls 'registerSVGBridges' well after the constructor completes,
the 1.5.1 release did call
Hi Jeremias,
Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/14/2005 08:33:47 AM:
Given the number of bugs fixed and the feedback we got, I think it
should be safe to do another release tagged beta.
If you want to do this, then we should 'fix' the PDFTranscoder
for SVG text. It appears
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jeremias,
Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/14/2005 08:33:47 AM:
Given the number of bugs fixed and the feedback we got, I think it
should be safe to do another release tagged beta.
If you want to do this, then we should 'fix' the PDFTranscoder
Hello,
WDYT?
That's cool!
I was stick to 0.20.5 but now I once have adapted 0.90svn it's working
great.
Just wanted to ask if the upcoming release will have anything to do with
FOray fonts or not yet ?
If NO I would like to ask maybe those 2 patches will be then useful for
upcoming beta
On 14.12.2005 15:40:46 Adam Strzelecki wrote:
Hello,
WDYT?
That's cool!
I was stick to 0.20.5 but now I once have adapted 0.90svn it's working
great.
Good to hear.
Just wanted to ask if the upcoming release will have anything to do with
FOray fonts or not yet ?
No. That's
fop-0.90-trunk-toUnicodeCMap.patch (attached, also one that is in
bugzilla) - embedding ToUnicode maps (previously did one for 0.20.5, but
this one works nice with SVN head)
I'd love to but I've had to seek legal advice on this topic, because you
took a file from another project. It's
On 14.12.2005 16:10:29 Adam Strzelecki wrote:
fop-0.90-trunk-toUnicodeCMap.patch (attached, also one that is in
bugzilla) - embedding ToUnicode maps (previously did one for 0.20.5, but
this one works nice with SVN head)
I'd love to but I've had to seek legal advice on this topic,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought this bug was fixed in Batik's SVN Head. If so, it will be
fixed when we next do a release in Batik, and if people need a fix
sooner then they can download Batik source and build it themselves.
In general I agree, however it is extremely unlikely
On Dec 14, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Dec 14, 2005, at 14:33, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Given the number of bugs fixed and the feedback we got, I think it
should be safe to do another release tagged beta. I don't care
too much about the exact version number.
I'll leave
On 14.12.2005 18:29:01 Adam Strzelecki wrote:
Again, ASF license policy. No more distribution of unreleased code from
ASF hardware anymore. But you can use a Batik snapshot internally in
your company.
Frankly I'm not keen in ASF policy so sorry for my naive questions.
Absolutely no need
tagged the 0.90alpha1 release.
It would be nice if someone else could have a look at the builds
(available at http://people.apache.org/~chrisg/fop-0.90alpha1-test/)
for a quick test.
If no showstoppers are reported within the next hours I'll move this to
the distribution area (and wait 24 hours
Simon Pepping schrieb:
OK, except that I could not verify your signature:
Yes, I screwed it up - fixed now.
Thanks for checking
Christian
Almost forgot to sum up the results for the archives:
9 +1, no other votes. 7 out of 8 PMC members voted. The vote passes.
Apache FOP 0.90alpha1 can be released.
On 15.11.2005 21:14:12 Jeremias Maerki wrote:
This is it. Just to make it clear again: This is a a release vote and
therefore a PMC
Hi,
as you've probably noticed I've tagged the 0.90alpha1 release.
It would be nice if someone else could have a look at the builds
(available at http://people.apache.org/~chrisg/fop-0.90alpha1-test/)
for a quick test.
If no showstoppers are reported within the next hours I'll move
+1
Congratulations!
Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/15/2005 03:14:12 PM:
This is it. Just to make it clear again: This is a a release vote and
therefore a PMC vote, but every FOP committer is invited to place his
vote or raise any objections. Noone gets ignored. Although fop
+1
Simon
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:14:12PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
This is it. Just to make it clear again: This is a a release vote and
therefore a PMC vote, but every FOP committer is invited to place his
vote or raise any objections. Noone gets ignored. Although fop-dev
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:48 am, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I agree with you two. Therefore, I've resurrected status.xml, added
it to our website again and prepared it so we can start using it
after the release.
BTW, I think I'm through with all the things I wanted to do. What's
left now:
- write
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I agree with you two. Therefore, I've resurrected status.xml, added it
to our website again and prepared it so we can start using it after the
release.
BTW, I think I'm through with all the things I wanted to do. What's left
now:
- write the README/release notes
- Create
On 15.11.2005 10:28:19 Chris Bowditch wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I agree with you two. Therefore, I've resurrected status.xml, added it
to our website again and prepared it so we can start using it after the
release.
BTW, I think I'm through with all the things I wanted to do
Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
I agree with you two. Therefore, I've resurrected status.xml, added it
to our website again and prepared it so we can start using it after the
release.
BTW, I think I'm through with all the things I wanted to do. What's left
now:
- write the README/release notes
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 15.11.2005 10:28:19 Chris Bowditch wrote:
Sorry to be picky, but the word alpha gives the impression that the
release is alpha quality. I'd say it was beta quality by now. Anyway, I
thought in the past we had agreed on calling it 0.90pr1, with pr
meaning preview
Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
On 15.11.2005 10:50:07 Christian Geisert wrote:
[..]
I don't think we need to vote on alpha/preview release (preview release
as in will be available on cvs.apache.org/builds/fop and not on the
official www.apache.org/dist) but should do it nevertheless
On 15.11.2005 11:42:31 Christian Geisert wrote:
Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
On 15.11.2005 10:50:07 Christian Geisert wrote:
[..]
I don't think we need to vote on alpha/preview release (preview release
as in will be available on cvs.apache.org/builds/fop and not on the
official
Hi Jeremias,
Not to rain on your parade, but doesn't there need to be a vote on
fop-dev by committers on the release before
bringing it to the PMC? Also doesn't a formal vote need to run at least
one full week? I understand your
desire to get the release out but...
Jeremias Maerki
/www-legal-discuss/
[3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
On 15.11.2005 13:59:45 thomas.deweese wrote:
Hi Jeremias,
Not to rain on your parade, but doesn't there need to be a vote on
fop-dev by committers on the release before
bringing it to the PMC? Also doesn't a formal vote
an invitation
for the collection of other points of view (i.e. a vote on dev/user
for a release). In this case I'm sure it will be greeted with
enthusiasm, but I'm really hesitant to set precedent based on the
'best case' situation.
BTW, this is a topic that's currently discussed on legal
that can do
project decisions [1].
It appears that they are the 'binding body' from the ASF point of
view, but as a PMC member I would really like to see an invitation
for the collection of other points of view (i.e. a vote on dev/user
for a release). In this case I'm sure
This is it. Just to make it clear again: This is a a release vote and
therefore a PMC vote, but every FOP committer is invited to place his
vote or raise any objections. Noone gets ignored. Although fop-dev is in
the CC, please place your votes on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Even though I haven't fully
Manuel Mall schrieb:
[..]
IMHO there should be a changes document (as part of the
distribution), at least starting after the 1.0 release.
Yes there should - but for now: Just remove CHANGES and update README?
I'd say yes.
--
Christian
in a backwards-incompatible way. And we will have to change
the meaning/implementation of the top property. Right now it offsets
the b-c relative to the top of the containing box, AFAICS. Well, I'll
leave this for after the release. Thanks for digging into the 1.1 draft!
Jeremias Maerki
Manuel Mall a écrit :
As the project hasn't done a release for a long time and especially no
release of the new codebase we should test probably a bit more
extensively than usual that the distribution builds actually are
working and don't contain any 'cheap' errors.
To that effect I have
I agree with you two. Therefore, I've resurrected status.xml, added it
to our website again and prepared it so we can start using it after the
release.
BTW, I think I'm through with all the things I wanted to do. What's left
now:
- write the README/release notes
- Create a copy of the xdocs/trunk
On Nov 13, 2005, at 16:14, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
So, the values of these properties need to be changed to reflect
the reference-orientation specified on the block-container in
question...
FWIW: tried to change these, but I'm still getting warnings... No
idea yet on how to proceed
Right, it looks like I wrote the checks and some of the code in terms of
the containing reference area, not the containing box. It's probably
best to disable the warnings for now and to look at how to fix the
behaviour after the release, because it looks like a potentially bigger
problem. The size
On 13.11.2005 18:00:33 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Nov 13, 2005, at 17:36, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
snip /
The other question is:
What's the box? The containing area?
Yep. I think this is answered in the definition of absolute-
position=absolute:
First, for the value of absolute
On Nov 13, 2005, at 18:17, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
snip /
I don't think so, if we're talking about the area. Assume a longer
block
with several lines which also contains an absolutely positioned b-
c. If
there's a page break in the middle of this block and the vertical size
of the b-c is
On Nov 13, 2005, at 18:36, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 13.11.2005 18:26:24 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
Ouch indeed! :-/
Seems I'm confusing:
the area generated is a descendant of the page-area
This only tells where the area generated for the b-c is to be added
to.
It has little to do with the
On Nov 13, 2005, at 18:00, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Nov 13, 2005, at 17:36, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
snip /
The other question is:
What's the box? The containing area?
Yep. I think this is answered in the definition of absolute-
position=absolute:
First, for the value of absolute
The
Manuel Mall schrieb:
[..]
No hurry, I just meant to prepare everything (still problems with
forrest) - and Manuel is already doing a lot of the work - the actual
release isn't that much work and can be done later ...
Sorry, didn't intend to steal your work Christian.
Heh, I like it when
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:56 am, Christian Geisert wrote:
Manuel Mall schrieb:
[..]
No hurry, I just meant to prepare everything (still problems with
forrest) - and Manuel is already doing a lot of the work - the
actual release isn't that much work and can be done later ...
Sorry, didn't
Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
Cool, thanks! Let's hope I can squeeze everything in until then.
No hurry, I just meant to prepare everything (still problems with
forrest) - and Manuel is already doing a lot of the work - the actual
release isn't that much work and can be done later ...
Christian
Just for the record -
The current version of fop (r332584) builds and passes all JUnit tests
under RedHat ES 3 for:
jdk1.3.1_16 (1.3.1_16-b06)
j2sdk1.4.2_06 (1.4.2_06-b03)
java-1.5.0 (1.5.0_03-b07)
Manuel
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:05 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
snip/
Are there any objections on doing the first release within the next
few days? Is there anything that needs to be done which is not on the
release plan [1] besides the sandbox proposal? Does anyone see any
outstanding legal issues
it won't
hurt, either.
On 10.11.2005 08:59:55 Manuel Mall wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:05 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
snip/
Are there any objections on doing the first release within the
next few days? Is there anything that needs to be done which is
not on the release plan [1
The time has come and we need to push FOP out to the public again, at
least IMO. I'm currently seeing through the last few things (patches,
docs, bugs etc.).
Are there any objections on doing the first release within the next few
days? Is there anything that needs to be done which
few days.
I wanted to get this off my table. I originally hoped I could push the
release this week, but it'll have to wait. Next week, I'll be away but I
might have enough time during that week to do a few things off-line. The
biggest issue I currently see is the showstopper (ArrayIndexOutOfBounds
Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If all had gone as planned we would have done the first preview release
last month. As soon as I'm finished with my space resolution task
(hopefully this week), I'm going to write all necessary documentation
for the redesigned FOP and then we're
: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Approaching a release?
If all had gone as planned we would have done the first preview release
last month. As soon as I'm finished with my space resolution task
(hopefully this week), I'm going to write all necessary documentation
As FOP is my only hope for a viable open-source alternative path to
PDF, I have been eagerly anticipating your next release. Can anyone
give me a sense of how close (or far off) that might be?
Thanks,
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
If all had gone as planned we would have done the first preview release
last month. As soon as I'm finished with my space resolution task
(hopefully this week), I'm going to write all necessary documentation
for the redesigned FOP and then we're pretty much ready to release.
Note: alpha/preview
with open-source tools
(FOP and Saxon).
Jay Bryant
Bryant Communication Services
- Original Message -
From: Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Approaching a release?
If all had gone as planned we
moving them, please indicate those as they are probably not
easily recognizable in the patch.
Thanks for doing that for us! That's one of the most important
preconditions to get the first release out.
PS: Some might have seen that I've changed my mail address for posting
to mailing lists. The ISP
I apologize for not responding sooner, but I've been very busy lately.
Anyways, I've finally found some time to get working on the website. I
think I got everything right, now I just need to work on some broken links.
Also, I am wondering if the svn diff will show everything (I moved some
right now.
- stability and usability, of course. :-)
(there may be more...)
BTW, you're welcome to add your list to the release plan. I think it's a
good idea to have this information available.
On 31.08.2005 05:09:40 Manuel Mall wrote:
Excellent - I like the sound of it :-).
Personally, after
.
- leaders/rules are incomplete
- Fewer renderers available, only PDF and PS are really usable right
now. - stability and usability, of course. :-)
(there may be more...)
Great list and some overlap with what I cobbled together.
BTW, you're welcome to add your list to the release plan. I
together.
BTW, you're welcome to add your list to the release plan. I think
it's a good idea to have this information available.
Sure, but my point was that I would like to see a list of things the
committers agree upon as the baseline to aim for 1.0. Not a generic
list with all the problems
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
The subject says it all:
http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ReleasePlanFirstPR
This is open for discussion. I'd really love to get the first release
out by the end of September.
Thats a good objective. I've reviewed the plan and it looks good. I
noticed
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36432.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Like others I'm hesitant to call it 1.0 just yet. 0.9 sends the right
signal IMO. We're not quite where we want to be but we are soon and
people can start looking at the new package.
(..)
Jeremias Maerki
I agree, we have to be carefull to send the right message.
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 10:07 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Like others I'm hesitant to call it 1.0 just yet. 0.9 sends the right
signal IMO. We're not quite where we want to be but we are soon and
people can start looking at the new package.
I would recommend calling it 0.90, since obviously 9
Just an update to let you know I should have something ready to show you
this week-end.
Patrick Paul
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Ok, so let's try to come up with a list. I see:
The whole Using FOP section
- compiling.xml
- configuration.xml
- running.xml
- embedding.xml
- servlets.xml
-
The subject says it all:
http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ReleasePlanFirstPR
This is open for discussion. I'd really love to get the first release
out by the end of September.
Jeremias Maerki
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36432.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
apply of course. To
some extend it also depends on when we want to declare a feature freeze
for 1.0, aim for stability and bug removal to get to a 1.0 beta and a
1.0 release. It must be pretty close as in terms of features/compliance
the trunk code already vastly exceeds 0.20.5. I would therefore
301 - 400 of 420 matches
Mail list logo
