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.
But that
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
Oh, I got sunshine outside. Not even fog today. :-) No, there's no need
for a committer vote prior to the PMC vote. In terms of the Apache
bylaws the PMC is the only body that can do project decisions [1]. BTW,
this is a topic that's currently discussed on legal-discuss [2]. Where
did you read
Hi Jeremias,
Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/15/2005 08:28:11 AM:
In terms of the Apache bylaws the PMC is the only body 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
Hi Thomas
Don't take what I wrote too much by the letter. Always add a little
common sense. See below.
On 15.11.2005 15:49:39 thomas.deweese wrote:
Hi Jeremias,
Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/15/2005 08:28:11 AM:
In terms of the Apache bylaws the PMC is the only body that
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
On 13.11.2005 19:53:32 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
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-
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
Took the liberty to actually do this and followed Jeremias advice to
KISS.
The new directory layout is just:
test
|---layoutengine
|-- standard-testcases
|-- hyphenation-testcases
To select a group set the fop.layoutengine.testset system property to
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 is not on the
28 matches
Mail list logo
