ing to use PDF-plugin with the new
release of FOP would need to build it from source code using a
PDFBox snaphot. Not ideal, but we are long overdue a FOP release,
and only a small number of users are using the PDF plug-in. So I'm
+1 to this proposal.
ok; that works for me...
or
> core functionality.
>
> So the proposal is just to release the FOP project, not PDF plug-in. This
> means anyone wishing to use PDF-plugin with the new release of FOP would
> need to build it from source code using a PDFBox snaphot. Not ideal, but we
> are long overdue a FOP relea
, not PDF plug-in.
This means anyone wishing to use PDF-plugin with the new release of FOP
would need to build it from source code using a PDFBox snaphot. Not
ideal, but we are long overdue a FOP release, and only a small number of
users are using the PDF plug-in. So I'm +1 to this pro
I'm not comfortable requiring use of a snapshot dependency. For example,
that would prevent deployment to maven central.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Chris Bowditch
wrote:
> Hi Glen,
>
> Its expected that a -1 vote includes a justification. You may well be
> right, but we are not mind reader
When I suggested releasing Batik back in December, Glenn mentioned that
he wanted to fix some issues (namely
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2391) before releasing FOP
2.0. I assume this is the reason for -1, but I agree that a
justification would help since not everyone may remembe
Hi Glen,
Its expected that a -1 vote includes a justification. You may well be
right, but we are not mind readers and have no idea what you are thinking...
Thanks,
Chris
On 21/04/2015 16:32, Glenn Adams wrote:
-1
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Simon Steiner
mailto:simonsteiner1...@gmail
Hi,
Its listed here
https://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/trunk/running.html
Thanks
From: Clay Leeds [mailto:the.webmaes...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 April 2015 21:23
To: Apache FOP
Subject: Re: FOP Release
One of the changes for PDFBox 2.0.0 (from what I gather from the PDFBox ‘Ideas
One of the changes for PDFBox 2.0.0 (from what I gather from the PDFBox ‘Ideas’
page), is a switch to Java 1.6.
We discussed a switch for FOP that required a higher version of Java (I believe
it was 1.6, but don’t recall).
But I can’t find anywhere on our site that indicates what the minimum Ja
-1
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Simon Steiner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Since Batik and XGC have been released, are we ready to release FOP?
>
>
>
> It has been said we can’t release PDF plugin using a snapshot release of
> PDFBox 2.0. PDFBox 1.8 is missing font parsing libraries we need for font
Hi,
Since Batik and XGC have been released, are we ready to release FOP?
It has been said we can't release PDF plugin using a snapshot release of
PDFBox 2.0. PDFBox 1.8 is missing font parsing libraries we need for font
merging.
We could make release a PDF plugin beta release using snapsho
ed XML Graphics Commons v2.0, but the FOP release is
> dependent on other libraries being released first.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On 03/10/2014 06:49, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Thank you Luis,
>>
>> I have attached to Jira a Junit test for the CompareU
v2.0, but
the FOP release is dependent on other libraries being released first.
Thanks,
Chris
On 03/10/2014 06:49, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Thank you Luis,
I have attached to Jira a Junit test for the CompareUtil.equal method that
should prove the issue we are facing and should confirm that th
Thank you Luis,
I have attached to Jira a Junit test for the CompareUtil.equal method that
should prove the issue we are facing and should confirm that the fix I am
proposing should work ok.
As regards the bug fix release, at the moment this is the only issue that I am
aware of that is causing
I can apply your patch although I do not have the environment to test it.
Regarding the question about a bug fix for 1.1, the answer is that there
is nothing planned but if there is interest from the FOP users I think
that can be accommodated. Is there any other bug your would like to see
fix
Hi all,
I am a committer for Apache OFBiz, a project that uses FOP 1.1 (thanks for this
amazing product).
I hope this is the right list to get some information about the release process
and planning of Apache FOP. Apart from FOP 2.0, is there a plan to release a
bug fix release for 1.1?
For ex
org
<mailto:fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org>
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 mailto:gl...@skynav.com>> wrote:
I suppose it de
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:vhenneb...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 16 July 201
ready.
Vincent
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:vhenneb...@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 July 2014 12:56
To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
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
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 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
Hi,
On 15/07/14 16:53, Clay Leeds wrote:
On Jul 15, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Glenn Adams 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
dated.
> Subject: Re: FOP Release Automation
> From: the.webmaes...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 07:53:19 -0700
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > I suppose it depends on whether or not we need to hack perl to use t
I prefer python but bash is fine. OTOH, anything written by Larry Wall
should be avoided like the plague.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Clay Leeds
wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > I suppose it depends on whether or not we need to hack perl to use the
> facility.
On Jul 15, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Glenn Adams 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
s for the time being. I will keep an eye
>> out on the infrastructure page and prod them occasionally to see if I can
>> move things along.
>>
>> Apologies for the long e-mail but just wanted to keep you all updated.
>>
>> Robert Meyer
>>
>> > Date
d feature and as such knowledge on the subject may be in short supply. As
>> such and without possibility of using the markdown extension we're left with
>> the manual process for the time being. I will keep an eye out on the
>> infrastructure page and prod them o
> Apologies for the long e-mail but just wanted to keep you all updated.
>
> Robert Meyer
>
> > Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 14:44:58 +0100
> > From: bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com
> > To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: FOP Release Automation
> >
>
f I can move things along.
Apologies for the long e-mail but just wanted to keep you all updated.
Robert Meyer
> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 14:44:58 +0100
> From: bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> Subject: Re: FOP Release Automation
>
> Hi All,
&g
From: simonsteiner1...@gmail.com <mailto:simonsteiner1...@gmail.com>
To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
<mailto:fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org>
Subject: RE: FOP Release Automation
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 14:48:15 +0100
Hi,
Simple way is to store docs inside fop repo:
Fop/docs/index.markdown
Insi
Robert Meyer :
> I'll definitely look into those. I'm going to be away on holiday now for a
> week or so but will continue once I get back.
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Robert
>
> From: Clay Leeds
> Sent: 5/30/2014 17:24
> To: Apache FOP
P<mailto:fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org>
Subject: Re: FOP Release Automation
Agreed, ‘some’ people wouldn’t be happy with that. ;-)
I wonder if the CMS Web interface could be extended to allow for a few keywords
like FOP_VERSION, FOP_REVISION, FOP_BRANCH, etc.
The CMS tool's WYSIWYG interface in
copy would become out of date.
>
> We could always shutdown the web interface, but I don't think too many people
> would be happy with that ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert
>
> From: simonsteiner1...@gmail.com
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> Subject
think too many people
would be happy with that ;-)
Regards,
Robert
From: simonsteiner1...@gmail.com
To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Subject: RE: FOP Release Automation
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 14:48:15 +0100
Hi, Simple way is to store docs inside fop repo: Fop/docs/index.markdown Inside
mar
bert Meyer [mailto:rme...@hotmail.co.uk]
Sent: 30 May 2014 14:05
To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Subject: RE: FOP Release Automation
Hi,
After investigating your suggestions Clay I have found that svn-hooks can't
be used for the purpose we require unfortunately as it may lead to proble
Hi,
After investigating your suggestions Clay I have found that svn-hooks can't be
used for the purpose we require unfortunately as it may lead to problems with
how SVN operates and also may have some unexpected results with files being
committed. This is stated in the documentation under "Crea
the
> idea of copying the trunk folder and doing a find / replace on say "trunk"
> and replacing with "2.0" would be an option (with some caveats), but I'll
> investigate the other methods first.
>
> I'll keep you posted.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert Me
ace on say "trunk" and replacing with
"2.0" would be an option (with some caveats), but I'll investigate the other
methods first.
I'll keep you posted.
Regards,
Robert Meyer
> Subject: Re: FOP Release Automation
> From: the.webmaes...@gmail.com
> Da
in released versions until v1.1, whole website was included in
src/documentation, using the old Forrest schema.
So, until v1.1, the website repo may embed directly versionned doc.
I don't think we need to remove them, just adding or removing a link
in sidenav will be sufficient (0.95 doc is always
Hi,
I thought I'd give an update on my research of speeding the RELEASE process...
I've spent some time researching, and I've asked for some assistance from
site-dev@...
Among the ideas I've been researching are:
- MarkDown PreProcessor[1]
- svn hook
I'm not married to either of these solution
>
> Cheers!
>
> Clay
>
> --
>
> "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
> - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
>
> On May 21, 2014, at 2:24 AM, Robert Meyer wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've been asked to look at a way to automate the F
7;ve been asked to look at a way to automate the FOP release process with
> regards the website documentation. At the moment every new release requires
> the following:
>
> 1) Download the site from SVN
> 2) Copy the folder containing the latest version's markdown files (1.1 for
&
Hi All,
I've been asked to look at a way to automate the FOP release process with
regards the website documentation. At the moment every new release requires the
following:
1) Download the site from SVN
2) Copy the folder containing the latest version's markdown files (1.1 for
ex
I found three news items about FOP 1.0 release:
-
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apache-FOP-gets-a-1-0-release-1042748.html
-
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/FOP-1-0-XML-fast-beliebig-drucken-1043077.html
-
http://java.dzone.com/news/fop-10-rounds-out-apache-xml?utm_source=feedbu
ong.
On 19.11.2008 09:37:41 Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On a serious note (as opposed to my outburst on fop-users), I think we
> should really discuss the FOP release plan which we haven't updated in a
> while. I would hate to see FOP in 0.x mode after 10 years of existence.
> Let&
On 21.11.2008 02:46:55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanx ;)
>
> I do believe that the plan called for a 3 months of beta before making
> it version 1...
Although that turned out to be 6 months last time.
> The last release was 0.95... in August... and not beta...
>
> So, my only question is...
Thanx ;)
I do believe that the plan called for a 3 months of beta before making
it version 1...
The last release was 0.95... in August... and not beta...
So, my only question is... if this release isn't version 1, then, what
is missing that you all feel it should be included/corrected? (that
Luis,
feedback from users is very welcome. Always. So no need to apologize.
If you want to know what we're working on (long-term), take a look at
http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/RoadMap. Some of us note our
priorities there. Of course, there are always smaller short-term tasks
(bugs and n
Andreas Delmelle wrote:
On 20 Nov 2008, at 18:55, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Come on, guys, this is a serious topic.
Oops... I'd better withdraw from the discussion, then. ;-)
Wait! I come with you.
BTW: 'FOP phi' (golden ratio) does have a nice ring to it.
Indeed. But insofar as it will
On 20 Nov 2008, at 18:55, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Come on, guys, this is a serious topic.
Oops... I'd better withdraw from the discussion, then. ;-)
BTW: 'FOP phi' (golden ratio) does have a nice ring to it.
Cheers
Andreas
Come on, guys, this is a serious topic.
Andreas Delmelle wrote:
On 20 Nov 2008, at 17:29, Dario Laera wrote:
Il giorno 19/nov/08, alle ore 09:37, Jeremias Maerki ha scritto:
How about calling the next version 2.009 (to be released in early
2009).
You may choose to compose a strange number
On 20 Nov 2008, at 17:29, Dario Laera wrote:
Il giorno 19/nov/08, alle ore 09:37, Jeremias Maerki ha scritto:
How about calling the next version 2.009 (to be released in early
2009).
You may choose to compose a strange number like Knuth is doing with $
\pi$ for \TeX versioning. What about
Sorry to mingle into this, but even if releasing a 1.0 is important (and
IMHO it should be done with current crop as it is recognized as stable for
it), a more important thing would be to update the empty space that appears
on the "future"...
I do believe that most current users and prospective us
Il giorno 19/nov/08, alle ore 09:37, Jeremias Maerki ha scritto:
How about calling the next version 2.009 (to be released in early
2009).
You may choose to compose a strange number like Knuth is doing with $
\pi$ for \TeX versioning. What about $\sqrt{2}$? :P
1.0 sounds fine to me, 2.009 seems like a bit of a jump from 0.95 :).
Adrian.
The Web Maestro wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:11 AM, Vincent Hennebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Moreover, it can only puzzle users I think. We've used <1.0 version
numbers for all those years, we've started a w
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:11 AM, Vincent Hennebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moreover, it can only puzzle users I think. We've used <1.0 version
> numbers for all those years, we've started a whole series of 0.9x
> releases, and all of a sudden we jump to >2.0?! With no significant
> changes fr
Hi,
My actual opinion is not politically correct, so I’ll try to stick to
constructive comments.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On a serious note (as opposed to my outburst on fop-users), I think we
should really discuss the FOP release plan which we haven't updated in a
while. I would hate to se
On 19 Nov 2008, at 09:37, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
How about calling the next version 2.009 (to be released in early
2009).
I like this idea. Something different that shows a clear break with
the past, and at the same time not too seriously...
+1
OhpointXitis is really bad.
Agreed. We
On a serious note (as opposed to my outburst on fop-users), I think we
should really discuss the FOP release plan which we haven't updated in a
while. I would hate to see FOP in 0.x mode after 10 years of existence.
Let's assume 0.20.5 was actually FOP 1.0, and FOP 0.95 was actually FO
-Saxon-in-future-FOP-release-tp19329624p19329624.html
Sent from the FOP - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
is message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Suport-For-Saxon-in-future-FOP-release-tp19329624p19329624.html
Sent from the FOP - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Jeremias Maerki
; Phil
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Suport-For-Saxon-in-future-FOP-release-tp19329624p19329624.html
> Sent from the FOP - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Jeremias Maerki
Simon Pepping a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:02:06PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote:
>> As discussed recently, I will prepare a release of FOP, to be named
>> 0.93.
>
> I have committed fixes for the reported issues with the dist files. I
> have also fixed a few other issues I discovered. I ha
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:02:06PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote:
> As discussed recently, I will prepare a release of FOP, to be named
> 0.93.
I have committed fixes for the reported issues with the dist files. I
have also fixed a few other issues I discovered. I have added a few
important changes t
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 10:09:14AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
> Is there any sort of time table for a non-alpha/beta 0.9x or 1.0 release?
That is what I am preparing: FOP 0.93 (without beta), to be released
on 2 January 2007.
Regards, Simon
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Is there any sort of time table for a non-alpha/beta 0.9x or 1.0 release?
--
Jess Holle
I've just updated my view of the status of the subsystems. Some
additional tweaking might be required.
About the graphic: I might design a new one after a xmas break. If
someone beats me to it, all the better.
On 22.12.2006 20:28:21 Simon Pepping wrote:
> I want to do some rewriting of the file s
I want to do some rewriting of the file status.html of the web
site.
Can you give some feedback on the items in the status overview table
at the bottom?
It would be nice to have a few changes to the image as well: display
release 0.93 and the future release 1.0 (without DR1). I cannot do
that.
R
On Dec 22, 2006, at 13:29, Simon Pepping wrote:
Hi Simon,
Uncertain status. The linked bug is resolved, but the description does
not match the description of the bug:
Omitting fo:table-column or having fo:table-column without a
column-width
and attempting to create columns
On 22.12.2006 13:29:19 Simon Pepping wrote:
> I edited the release notes, made some changes to the upgrading and
> changes documents.
>
> I position this new release as the stable release. Version 0.20.5 is
> now advertised the previous release. This is apparent in various
> texts, esp. in the re
I edited the release notes, made some changes to the upgrading and
changes documents.
I position this new release as the stable release. Version 0.20.5 is
now advertised the previous release. This is apparent in various
texts, esp. in the release notes and in 0.93/index.html, and in the
redirects
On 19.12.2006 21:02:06 Simon Pepping wrote:
> As discussed recently, I will prepare a release of FOP, to be named
> 0.93.
>
> Two issues need to be addressed:
>
> 1. I will apply two patches by Richard Wheeldon, to improve memory
>usage:
>
> Bug http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
I created the documentation for version 0.93 (see
src/documentation/content/xdocs/0.93) and edited it for the new
release version. Please, check it. Especial attention is needed for
the new release notes, src/documentation/content/xdocs/relnotes.xml,
most of which still have to be written, the FAQ,
Done, and branch xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-0_93 created.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:02:06PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote:
> As discussed recently, I will prepare a release of FOP, to be named
> 0.93.
>
> Two issues need to be addressed:
>
> 1. I will apply two patches by Richard Wheeldon, to im
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 05:02, Simon Pepping wrote:
> Manuel, can you hold your changes until the branch has been created?
>
No problems, will wait until the branch is there.
>
> Regards, Simon
Manuel
As discussed recently, I will prepare a release of FOP, to be named
0.93.
Two issues need to be addressed:
1. I will apply two patches by Richard Wheeldon, to improve memory
usage:
Bug http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41009, with
patch http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attach
74 matches
Mail list logo
