Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
This vote was launched while discussion was still going on on the mailing list. It would have been good to wait that a consensus is reached, which I don’t think has happened yet. What was the urgency to launch the vote now? I haven’t received any answer to my concerns about the following metrics: • 74 files in the o.a.f.fonts package In o.a.f.fonts.truetype.TTFFile: • 5502 lines • 150+ method declarations In the test o.a.f.complexscripts.util.TTXFile: • 3449 lines • 50+ field declarations • 1800 lines in the Handler.startElement method As it currently is, I believe that the font package will cause serious issues when merging other branches, fixing bugs or implementing other features. I don’t see what advantage does merging the Complex Scripts branch to trunk bring. Users who are skilled enough to check out a copy of the trunk, build it and test it can equally do it on a branch. For the rest of them, I don’t think that downloading a nightly build of trunk or a build of the branch would make any difference. ATM Simon is regularly uploading a build of the branch on his personal space at people.apache.org. I believe that this is exactly what non power users need, and I would be happy to take over this task if he is no longer willing to do it. If trunk is regularly merged to the branch (which I would also happily do), then it makes virtually no difference whether one is working on the trunk or on the branch. The new code deliberately ignores established code conventions by disabling Checkstyle rules. This makes it inconsistent with the rest of the code base and will unnecessarily distract people who try to understand it. I saw some slightly encouraging notes from Glenn that he is prepared to do some refactoring work on his code. I urge him to break down the fonts package and classes into smaller, more manageable components, and to do it as soon as possible. ATM I don’t believe that this code is maintainable by anyone else but Glenn. Therefore I think that merging it to Trunk is a bad idea. I’m not willing to provide any support for it at the moment, and the tone of his latest messages does certainly not encourage me to get involved in it in the future. Therefore, I’m voting -0.9. Vincent On 25/10/11 09:31, Simon Pepping wrote: With his latest patch, Glenn Adams wrote: With this latest patch I am satisfied that there is sufficient testing and stability in the CS branch to support its merger into trunk. Therefore, I request that such a merge be accomplished after applying patch 5 to the CS branch. ... snip ... Note that there remains work to be done on CS support, including adding support for: - additional scripts - additional output formats At present, support is provided for: - Arabic, Hebrew, and Devanagari Scripts - PDF output format I expect that additional support for other scripts and formats will be added over time, either by myself, or other members of the community. However, the absence of support for all complex scripts and all output formats should not be a deterrent to active use of the support already present. It is now a good time to broaden the user community of the CS features, and the best way to do that is to bring it into the trunk at this time. End of quote Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote. I vote positive: +1 For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter, article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter. Simon Pepping
Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
I will vote -0 with reasons I have already expressed in the 'Merge Request - Temp_ComplexScripts into Trunk' thread. I hope we can go forward refining this work, along with the rest FOP, through constructive collaboration, respecting the varied degrees of experiences, expertises and passion that we can all bring to the project. Peter [1] http://markmail.org/message/ti5233ftlxacau4a On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Vincent Hennebert vhenneb...@gmail.com wrote: This vote was launched while discussion was still going on on the mailing list. It would have been good to wait that a consensus is reached, which I don’t think has happened yet. What was the urgency to launch the vote now? I haven’t received any answer to my concerns about the following metrics: • 74 files in the o.a.f.fonts package In o.a.f.fonts.truetype.TTFFile: • 5502 lines • 150+ method declarations In the test o.a.f.complexscripts.util.TTXFile: • 3449 lines • 50+ field declarations • 1800 lines in the Handler.startElement method As it currently is, I believe that the font package will cause serious issues when merging other branches, fixing bugs or implementing other features. I don’t see what advantage does merging the Complex Scripts branch to trunk bring. Users who are skilled enough to check out a copy of the trunk, build it and test it can equally do it on a branch. For the rest of them, I don’t think that downloading a nightly build of trunk or a build of the branch would make any difference. ATM Simon is regularly uploading a build of the branch on his personal space at people.apache.org. I believe that this is exactly what non power users need, and I would be happy to take over this task if he is no longer willing to do it. If trunk is regularly merged to the branch (which I would also happily do), then it makes virtually no difference whether one is working on the trunk or on the branch. The new code deliberately ignores established code conventions by disabling Checkstyle rules. This makes it inconsistent with the rest of the code base and will unnecessarily distract people who try to understand it. I saw some slightly encouraging notes from Glenn that he is prepared to do some refactoring work on his code. I urge him to break down the fonts package and classes into smaller, more manageable components, and to do it as soon as possible. ATM I don’t believe that this code is maintainable by anyone else but Glenn. Therefore I think that merging it to Trunk is a bad idea. I’m not willing to provide any support for it at the moment, and the tone of his latest messages does certainly not encourage me to get involved in it in the future. Therefore, I’m voting -0.9. Vincent On 25/10/11 09:31, Simon Pepping wrote: With his latest patch, Glenn Adams wrote: With this latest patch I am satisfied that there is sufficient testing and stability in the CS branch to support its merger into trunk. Therefore, I request that such a merge be accomplished after applying patch 5 to the CS branch. ... snip ... Note that there remains work to be done on CS support, including adding support for: - additional scripts - additional output formats At present, support is provided for: - Arabic, Hebrew, and Devanagari Scripts - PDF output format I expect that additional support for other scripts and formats will be added over time, either by myself, or other members of the community. However, the absence of support for all complex scripts and all output formats should not be a deterrent to active use of the support already present. It is now a good time to broaden the user community of the CS features, and the best way to do that is to bring it into the trunk at this time. End of quote Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote. I vote positive: +1 For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter, article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter. Simon Pepping
Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
Seven committers voted. There were five +1 votes and no -1 votes. There
was one -0.9 vote and one -0 vote.
According to the Project Charter three +1 ('yes' votes) with no -1
('no' votes or vetoes) are needed to approve a significant code
change. Therefore the proposal to merge the Temp_ComplexScripts branch
into trunk has been accepted.
Thank you for voting. I acknowledge that Vincent and Peter are not
convinced of the wisdom of this decision. I hope we can all move
forward with this new situation.
Simon
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:31:43AM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote:
With his latest patch, Glenn Adams wrote:
With this latest patch I am satisfied that there is sufficient testing and
stability in the CS branch to support its merger into trunk. Therefore, I
request that such a merge be accomplished after applying patch 5 to the CS
branch.
... snip ...
Note that there remains work to be done on CS support, including adding
support for:
- additional scripts
- additional output formats
At present, support is provided for:
- Arabic, Hebrew, and Devanagari Scripts
- PDF output format
I expect that additional support for other scripts and formats will be added
over time, either by myself, or other members of the community. However, the
absence of support for all complex scripts and all output formats should not
be a deterrent to active use of the support already present. It is now a
good time to broaden the user community of the CS features, and the best way
to do that is to bring it into the trunk at this time.
End of quote
Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch
Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote.
I vote positive: +1
For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter,
article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter.
Simon Pepping
Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
Thank you FOP team. As I have stated previously, I am prepared to improve
and maintain this code moving forward, including adding comments for local
variables not already described, and refactoring certain classes to reduce
class size.
I've also given some thought to moving the new CS classes in o.a.f.fonts
into a new subpackage:
org.apache.fop.fonts.complexscripts
It may also be possible to refactor the new ATT parsing support I added to
o.a.f.fonts.truetype.TTFFile into separate files as well. Frankly, though, I
wonder if the entire font subsystem isn't in need of a redesign. It seems to
be overly complex and unwieldy even without the new CS features.
I may also refactor BidiUtil and move into a new subpackage:
org.apache.fop.layoutengine.bidi
Regarding o.a.f.complexscripts.util.TTXFile, this is a utility class used
only with certain junit related test files. At present, checkstyle is not
even run on *any* of the junit related java source files. Length of this
file or its methods or number of field declarations should not an issue. If
someone wants to refactor that file as an exercise for the reader, I have no
objection.
Let me know how I may most expeditiously accomplish this work. In the mean
time, I will prepare a patch against trunk from the Temp_CS branch, which I
imagine Simon will be the one to apply.
G.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Simon Pepping spepp...@leverkruid.euwrote:
Seven committers voted. There were five +1 votes and no -1 votes. There
was one -0.9 vote and one -0 vote.
According to the Project Charter three +1 ('yes' votes) with no -1
('no' votes or vetoes) are needed to approve a significant code
change. Therefore the proposal to merge the Temp_ComplexScripts branch
into trunk has been accepted.
Thank you for voting. I acknowledge that Vincent and Peter are not
convinced of the wisdom of this decision. I hope we can all move
forward with this new situation.
Simon
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:31:43AM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote:
With his latest patch, Glenn Adams wrote:
With this latest patch I am satisfied that there is sufficient testing
and
stability in the CS branch to support its merger into trunk. Therefore, I
request that such a merge be accomplished after applying patch 5 to the
CS
branch.
... snip ...
Note that there remains work to be done on CS support, including adding
support for:
- additional scripts
- additional output formats
At present, support is provided for:
- Arabic, Hebrew, and Devanagari Scripts
- PDF output format
I expect that additional support for other scripts and formats will be
added
over time, either by myself, or other members of the community. However,
the
absence of support for all complex scripts and all output formats should
not
be a deterrent to active use of the support already present. It is now a
good time to broaden the user community of the CS features, and the best
way
to do that is to bring it into the trunk at this time.
End of quote
Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch
Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote.
I vote positive: +1
For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter,
article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter.
Simon Pepping
Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
I vote positive too: +1 Le 25/10/2011 10:31, Simon Pepping a écrit : With his latest patch, Glenn Adams wrote: With this latest patch I am satisfied that there is sufficient testing and stability in the CS branch to support its merger into trunk. Therefore, I request that such a merge be accomplished after applying patch 5 to the CS branch. ... snip ... Note that there remains work to be done on CS support, including adding support for: - additional scripts - additional output formats At present, support is provided for: - Arabic, Hebrew, and Devanagari Scripts - PDF output format I expect that additional support for other scripts and formats will be added over time, either by myself, or other members of the community. However, the absence of support for all complex scripts and all output formats should not be a deterrent to active use of the support already present. It is now a good time to broaden the user community of the CS features, and the best way to do that is to bring it into the trunk at this time. End of quote Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote. I vote positive: +1 For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter, article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter. Simon Pepping -- Pascal
Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
On 25/10/2011 09:31, Simon Pepping wrote: With his latest patch, Glenn Adams wrote: Hi All, With this latest patch I am satisfied that there is sufficient testing and stability in the CS branch to support its merger into trunk. Therefore, I request that such a merge be accomplished after applying patch 5 to the CS branch. Although there are some concerns over certain technical aspects in the Complex Scripts branch Glenn has spent some time answering our concerns and has made some steps towards a compromise. Given the need for this feature in the community and the level of testing Glenn has conducted I am happy for the merge to proceed. Thanks for your hard work Glenn! snip/ Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote. I vote positive: +1 +1 For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter, article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter. Simon Pepping Chris
Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote. I vote positive: +1 For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter, article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter. Simon Pepping This sounds good to me, but I want to ask: Does this new feature have any impact on people not using Complex Scripts in their FOP process? Regards, The Web Maestro -- the.webmaes...@gmail.com - http://ourlil.com/ My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
Hi, There was a discussion about enabling it by default, with some performances tests. see http://marc.info/?l=fop-devm=131108266423848w=2 Le 25/10/2011 14:54, The Web Maestro a écrit : Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote. I vote positive: +1 For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter, article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter. Simon Pepping This sounds good to me, but I want to ask: Does this new feature have any impact on people not using Complex Scripts in their FOP process? Regards, The Web Maestro -- the.webmaes...@gmail.com - http://ourlil.com/ My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet -- Pascal
Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
Thanks Pascal! And thank you Glenn! Great work! +1 from me! My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet On Oct 25, 2011, at 6:29 AM, Pascal Sancho pascal.san...@takoma.fr wrote: Hi, There was a discussion about enabling it by default, with some performances tests. see http://marc.info/?l=fop-devm=131108266423848w=2 Le 25/10/2011 14:54, The Web Maestro a écrit : Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote. I vote positive: +1 For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter, article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter. Simon Pepping This sounds good to me, but I want to ask: Does this new feature have any impact on people not using Complex Scripts in their FOP process? Regards, The Web Maestro -- the.webmaes...@gmail.com - http://ourlil.com/ My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet -- Pascal
Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
The short answer is that if you do not wish to be affected by complex script support, you can use the new -nocs command line option or you can specify complex-scripts disabled='true'/ in your FOP configuration file. Keep in mind that Latin (Roman), Cyrillic, and Greek scripts also benefit from support when complex scripts are enabled, since in these cases the advanced typographic tables (ATT) present in OpenType fonts used with these scripts are enabled. For example, such tables enable the correct placement of combining marks (e.g., diacritics and accents) with base characters. G. On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:54 PM, The Web Maestro the.webmaes...@gmail.comwrote: Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote. I vote positive: +1 For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter, article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter. Simon Pepping This sounds good to me, but I want to ask: Does this new feature have any impact on people not using Complex Scripts in their FOP process? Regards, The Web Maestro -- the.webmaes...@gmail.com - http://ourlil.com/ My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
The vote runs for three days, and will end on Friday 28 October 2011 at 18:00h UTC. Simon Pepping On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:31:43AM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote: Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote. For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter, article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter.
Re: [VOTE] Merge branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk
+1 from me. A lot of work, a great achievement. On 25 October 2011 12:10, Simon Pepping spepp...@leverkruid.eu wrote: The vote runs for three days, and will end on Friday 28 October 2011 at 18:00h UTC. Simon Pepping On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:31:43AM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote: Following this request, I herewith propose to merge the branch Temp_ComplexScripts into trunk, and launch a formal vote. For the rules of voting about code commits, see the project charter, article 11, http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics/ProjectCharter.
