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 bu...@apache.org on 2007/07/10 18:34:05 UTC
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 42845] - Printing error. Prints charater+1.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG�
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42845>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND�
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42845
a_l.delmelle@pandora.be changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
------- Additional Comments From a_l.delmelle@pandora.be 2007-07-10 09:34 -------
Apologies, but bugs in FOP 0.20.5 will no longer be fixed.
Please try FOP 0.93 or the Trunk, and see if the problem persists there.
--
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 42845] - Printing error. Prints charater+1.
Posted by Vincent Hennebert <vi...@anyware-tech.com>.
Hi Chris,
I fully agree with you. Moreover I think the website refactoring should
be done when releasing FOP 0.94, and that's where I call for help. We
would remove the 0.20.5 tab and replace it with a "upgrading from
earlier versions" section.
Once 0.94 is out we would remove the 0.20.5 entry from Bugzilla.
As to the conformance page, I think we could remove the 0.20.5 column as
well. When I have a look at it it gives me the feeling that 0.93 isn't
that life-changing compared to 0.20.5, whereas I think it is...
Vincent
Chris Bowditch a écrit :
> bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
>
>> ------- Additional Comments From a_l.delmelle@pandora.be 2007-07-10
>> 09:34 -------
>>
>> Apologies, but bugs in FOP 0.20.5 will no longer be fixed. Please try
>> FOP 0.93 or the Trunk, and see if the problem persists there.
>>
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> I notice you closing a few 0.20.5 bugs and completely agree that we
> shouldn't be spending time looking at these issues any more. The trouble
> is people keep using 0.20.5 and raising bugs against it because our
> website gives the impressive 0.20.5 is still a supported product, an
> alternative to 0.93 rather than 0.93 being a replacement for 0.20.5. The
> is confirmed by the fact the website has separate tabs for 0.20.5 and 0.93.
>
> If we are serious about no longer supporting 0.20.5, which I think we
> should be after nearly 2 years of 0.9x releases then I think we should
> seriously consider refactoring the website slightly to get the point
> across. Indeed to save us the bother of continually closing bugs against
> 0.20.5 with WONTFIX, we could remove all 0.20.x entries from the
> bugzilla version list ;)
>
> In terms of refactoring the website I think the tab titled 0.20.5 should
> contain the page how to upgrade from previous versions, instead of
> documentation on how to configure 0.20.5 etc. Then it is totally clear
> that 0.20.5 is no longer a supported product and if folk choose to
> continue to use it then they must support it themselves instead of
> bombarding us with problems with relating to it.
>
> I am not so sure if 0.20.5 should be removed from the compliance page
> yet but we should also consider removing the binaries from the download
> area. That will discourage any new users starting to use it instead of
> the active 0.9x release, which they may well do in error at the moment
> because of the website showing 0.20.5 and 0.93 side by side.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Chris
>
>
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 42845] - Printing error. Prints charater+1.
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From a_l.delmelle@pandora.be 2007-07-10 09:34 -------
>
> Apologies, but bugs in FOP 0.20.5 will no longer be fixed.
> Please try FOP 0.93 or the Trunk, and see if the problem persists there.
>
Hi Andreas,
I notice you closing a few 0.20.5 bugs and completely agree that we
shouldn't be spending time looking at these issues any more. The trouble
is people keep using 0.20.5 and raising bugs against it because our
website gives the impressive 0.20.5 is still a supported product, an
alternative to 0.93 rather than 0.93 being a replacement for 0.20.5. The
is confirmed by the fact the website has separate tabs for 0.20.5 and 0.93.
If we are serious about no longer supporting 0.20.5, which I think we
should be after nearly 2 years of 0.9x releases then I think we should
seriously consider refactoring the website slightly to get the point
across. Indeed to save us the bother of continually closing bugs against
0.20.5 with WONTFIX, we could remove all 0.20.x entries from the
bugzilla version list ;)
In terms of refactoring the website I think the tab titled 0.20.5 should
contain the page how to upgrade from previous versions, instead of
documentation on how to configure 0.20.5 etc. Then it is totally clear
that 0.20.5 is no longer a supported product and if folk choose to
continue to use it then they must support it themselves instead of
bombarding us with problems with relating to it.
I am not so sure if 0.20.5 should be removed from the compliance page
yet but we should also consider removing the binaries from the download
area. That will discourage any new users starting to use it instead of
the active 0.9x release, which they may well do in error at the moment
because of the website showing 0.20.5 and 0.93 side by side.
WDYT?
Chris