You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Arved Sandstrom <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca> on 2001/08/02 01:28:44 UTC
New Release Imminent
Hi, all
Steve Coffman is getting Mark Lillywhite's patch put in place. We'll also
make sure that all code-formatting is OK after that committing happens...
I expect to work on the release at the start of the weekend, and have FOP
0.20.0 up in CVS NLT than say Aug 5. Fotis, is that enough time for docs?
Regards,
Arved Sandstrom
Fairly Senior Software Type
e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com)
Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Name of the Release (Was Re: New Release Imminent)
Posted by Arved Sandstrom <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca>.
At 07:06 PM 8/1/01 -0500, Weiqi Gao wrote:
>On 01 Aug 2001 20:28:44 -0300, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>
>> Steve Coffman is getting Mark Lillywhite's patch put in place. We'll
>> also make sure that all code-formatting is OK after that committing
>> happens...
>>
>> I expect to work on the release at the start of the weekend, and
>> have FOP 0.20.0 up in CVS NLT than say Aug 5. Fotis, is that enough
>> time for docs?
>
>If possible, can we stick to some sort of naming rules for the releases?
>The last four releases have been names 0.17.0, 0.18.0, 0.18.1-DEV and
>0.19.0-CVS.
>
>The 0.19.0-CVS release is extremly confusing for us, since we started
>using 0.19.0-CVS (the snapshot) after some of the table bugs have been
>fixed in CVS. And by the time the 0.19.0-CVS (the release) came along,
>we mixed up the two. Ironically, we are still using a snapshot version
>because the 0.19.0-CVS (the release) has the non-breaking table problem.
0.20.0 seems to make the most sense. I agree, CVS doesn't compute, because
_everything_ is CVS. I think I put in DEV because I wanted to highlight
that, but then arguments were advanced against that one, too. So just the
version number it shall be, unless there are any reasonable counter-arguments.
Arved
Fairly Senior Software Type
e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com)
Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Name of the Release (Was Re: New Release Imminent)
Posted by Weiqi Gao <we...@networkusa.net>.
On 01 Aug 2001 20:28:44 -0300, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
> Steve Coffman is getting Mark Lillywhite's patch put in place. We'll
> also make sure that all code-formatting is OK after that committing
> happens...
>
> I expect to work on the release at the start of the weekend, and
> have FOP 0.20.0 up in CVS NLT than say Aug 5. Fotis, is that enough
> time for docs?
If possible, can we stick to some sort of naming rules for the releases?
The last four releases have been names 0.17.0, 0.18.0, 0.18.1-DEV and
0.19.0-CVS.
The 0.19.0-CVS release is extremly confusing for us, since we started
using 0.19.0-CVS (the snapshot) after some of the table bugs have been
fixed in CVS. And by the time the 0.19.0-CVS (the release) came along,
we mixed up the two. Ironically, we are still using a snapshot version
because the 0.19.0-CVS (the release) has the non-breaking table problem.
--
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao@networkusa.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org