Re: Release Date
On 04.03.2008 11:10:30 Vincent Hennebert wrote: Hi, First, let me insist that the next release should be called 0.95 beta, according to the Apache documentation [1]. Release candidates are targetted at developers and users following the development, and I think we want to reach users outside the project (DocBook users being part of them). We must be consistent with the Apache naming scheme IMO. Whatever. I'm not sure if [1] really reflects a strict policy. I remember discussions about the membership around this topic some time ago. Several FOPers stated they prefer RC in January. But if you think beta is better and nobody objects, go ahead. Also, I have two pending changes regarding tables: - support for backgrounds on table-column and header/footer/body - conflict between fixed row height and forced break (if a forced break occurs before the row height is reached it gets ignored). I know of at least one user who is looking forward to seeing this bug fixed. I think it would be good to have those two features available in the next release. That shouldn’t take more than one week to finish them. Shouldn’t be a big deal to wait one more week? And that doesn’t prevent us from preparing everything but the artifacts building. WDYT? I think you are quite late to bring this on the table. I've started early enough to notify everyone that we'll be building a release around this time. If you want these two points in the release, go ahead but you'll have to take over most of the remaining release process. I've reserved time to do this now so I'll finish going through our website and then go back to hacking. Next week I won't have much time as I'm absorbed with OpenExpo in Bern. Vincent [1] http://apache.org/dev/release.html#release-typeso -- Vincent HennebertAnyware Technologies http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting Jeremias Maerki
Re: Release Date
Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 04.03.2008 11:10:30 Vincent Hennebert wrote: Hi, First, let me insist that the next release should be called 0.95 beta, according to the Apache documentation [1]. Release candidates are targetted at developers and users following the development, and I think we want to reach users outside the project (DocBook users being part of them). We must be consistent with the Apache naming scheme IMO. Whatever. I'm not sure if [1] really reflects a strict policy. I remember discussions about the membership around this topic some time ago. Several FOPers stated they prefer RC in January. But if you think beta is better and nobody objects, go ahead. Well even if we put different names on it, we all agreed on the process: publish an unstable version, then a stable one after some testing time. According to the Apache doc an rc doesn’t require a vote, but I guess we will vote. So a beta seems more appropriate to me. If nobody objects until tomorrow I’ll go ahead. Also, I have two pending changes regarding tables: - support for backgrounds on table-column and header/footer/body - conflict between fixed row height and forced break (if a forced break occurs before the row height is reached it gets ignored). I know of at least one user who is looking forward to seeing this bug fixed. I think it would be good to have those two features available in the next release. That shouldn’t take more than one week to finish them. Shouldn’t be a big deal to wait one more week? And that doesn’t prevent us from preparing everything but the artifacts building. WDYT? I think you are quite late to bring this on the table. I've started I’m going as fast as I can. early enough to notify everyone that we'll be building a release around this time. If you want these two points in the release, go ahead but you'll have to take over most of the remaining release process. I've Fine. Building the artifacts is not the biggest part of the work anyway. Updating the website is the most important one. reserved time to do this now so I'll finish going through our website and then go back to hacking. Next week I won't have much time as I'm absorbed with OpenExpo in Bern. Vincent -- Vincent HennebertAnyware Technologies http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
Re: Release Date
On 04.03.2008 11:55:36 Vincent Hennebert wrote: Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 04.03.2008 11:10:30 Vincent Hennebert wrote: Hi, First, let me insist that the next release should be called 0.95 beta, according to the Apache documentation [1]. Release candidates are targetted at developers and users following the development, and I think we want to reach users outside the project (DocBook users being part of them). We must be consistent with the Apache naming scheme IMO. Whatever. I'm not sure if [1] really reflects a strict policy. I remember discussions about the membership around this topic some time ago. Several FOPers stated they prefer RC in January. But if you think beta is better and nobody objects, go ahead. Well even if we put different names on it, we all agreed on the process: publish an unstable version, then a stable one after some testing time. According to the Apache doc an rc doesn’t require a vote, but I guess we will vote. So a beta seems more appropriate to me. If nobody objects until tomorrow I’ll go ahead. We obviously don't have the same definition of a release candidate as [1]. Whether a vote is necessary or not depends on whether we publish the release through the ASF mirrors or not. If someone puts a distribution on his personal web page and doesn't announce that on the user list (dev list is ok), it's not a formal release. Everything that gets announced to a wider audience needs to go on the mirrors in order to reduce the strain on ASF infrastructure and therefore has to be voted upon because it's a formal release backed by the PMC. So, we want feedback from the user community, and that's why a formal release is necessary. Also, I have two pending changes regarding tables: - support for backgrounds on table-column and header/footer/body - conflict between fixed row height and forced break (if a forced break occurs before the row height is reached it gets ignored). I know of at least one user who is looking forward to seeing this bug fixed. I think it would be good to have those two features available in the next release. That shouldn’t take more than one week to finish them. Shouldn’t be a big deal to wait one more week? And that doesn’t prevent us from preparing everything but the artifacts building. WDYT? I think you are quite late to bring this on the table. I've started I’m going as fast as I can. early enough to notify everyone that we'll be building a release around this time. If you want these two points in the release, go ahead but you'll have to take over most of the remaining release process. I've Fine. Building the artifacts is not the biggest part of the work anyway. Updating the website is the most important one. reserved time to do this now so I'll finish going through our website and then go back to hacking. Next week I won't have much time as I'm absorbed with OpenExpo in Bern. Vincent -- Vincent HennebertAnyware Technologies http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting Jeremias Maerki
