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 Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch> on 2008/11/19 09:37:41 UTC
Updating the FOP release plan
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 FOP
2.0. How about calling the next version 2.009 (to be released in early
2009). Skip 1.0 entirely since that would only let the expectations rise
into the sky. FOP had a major redesign which warrants at least a version
jump of one major version. Not calling it 2.0 means it's not a first
release from a fresh development branch. That will carry the message
along that FOP is stable and usable in a productive environment. Hell,
it's used in production by so many people for so many years.
OhpointXitis is really bad.
I know we still have about one item left on our pre-1.0 list:
http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ReleasePlanning
But that's still going to take a while. I want to revisit this list and
see what today's view is.
Flame away.
Jeremias Maerki
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Andreas Delmelle <an...@telenet.be>.
On 19 Nov 2008, at 09:37, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
<snip />
> 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
<snip />
> OhpointXitis is really bad.
Agreed. We should finally move away from that.
Cheers
Andreas
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
On 21.11.2008 02:46:55 kindaian@gmail.com 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... if this release isn't version 1, then, what
> is missing that you all feel it should be included/corrected? (that plan
> pre-dates 2005)
The list is on http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ReleasePlanning
(scroll down to "To be done before a 1.0 release"). That's what was
created after I wanted to do a 1.0 release in June 2006. And now I'm
forcing everyone to revisit it.
> Make the list, work on it... and release the "next version"...
If it were that simple, we'd already have 100% coverage of the XSL 1.0
spec. Resources, complexity, Real-Life.... If FOP got more volunteers,
maybe....
> And you can call it the "Cloud Document Generator", after all, seams to
> exist a new crazy around the computer wannabes (meaning marketeers of
> IT) to call everything new "Cloud" (Cloud FOP?)
>
> Because, from my point of view, and my tests with it, its more then
> ready... hehehe
That's right.
> ;)
>
>
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > 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 new features) that pop up on short notice and get done as
> > quickly. http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/changes.html tells you what
> > has been worked on in Trunk.
> >
> > On 20.11.2008 17:52:49 Luis Ferro wrote:
> >
> >> 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 users would like to see
> >> what is in the road ahead... [i would hehehe]
> >>
> >> ;)
> >>
> >> [no vote due to, well... i'm more a user then a dev of FOP hehehe]
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Dario Laera <la...@cs.unibo.it> 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).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> <joking>
> >>> You may choose to compose a strange number like Knuth is doing with $\pi$
> >>> for \TeX versioning. What about $\sqrt{2}$? :P
> >>> </joking>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeremias Maerki
> >
> >
>
Jeremias Maerki
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by "kindaian@gmail.com" <ki...@gmail.com>.
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 plan
pre-dates 2005)
Make the list, work on it... and release the "next version"...
And you can call it the "Cloud Document Generator", after all, seams to
exist a new crazy around the computer wannabes (meaning marketeers of
IT) to call everything new "Cloud" (Cloud FOP?)
Because, from my point of view, and my tests with it, its more then
ready... hehehe
;)
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> 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 new features) that pop up on short notice and get done as
> quickly. http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/changes.html tells you what
> has been worked on in Trunk.
>
> On 20.11.2008 17:52:49 Luis Ferro wrote:
>
>> 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 users would like to see
>> what is in the road ahead... [i would hehehe]
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> [no vote due to, well... i'm more a user then a dev of FOP hehehe]
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Dario Laera <la...@cs.unibo.it> 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).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <joking>
>>> You may choose to compose a strange number like Knuth is doing with $\pi$
>>> for \TeX versioning. What about $\sqrt{2}$? :P
>>> </joking>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> Jeremias Maerki
>
>
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
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 new features) that pop up on short notice and get done as
quickly. http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/changes.html tells you what
has been worked on in Trunk.
On 20.11.2008 17:52:49 Luis Ferro wrote:
> 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 users would like to see
> what is in the road ahead... [i would hehehe]
>
> ;)
>
> [no vote due to, well... i'm more a user then a dev of FOP hehehe]
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Dario Laera <la...@cs.unibo.it> 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).
> >>
> >
> > <joking>
> > You may choose to compose a strange number like Knuth is doing with $\pi$
> > for \TeX versioning. What about $\sqrt{2}$? :P
> > </joking>
> >
Jeremias Maerki
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Luis Ferro <ki...@gmail.com>.
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 users would like to see
what is in the road ahead... [i would hehehe]
;)
[no vote due to, well... i'm more a user then a dev of FOP hehehe]
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Dario Laera <la...@cs.unibo.it> 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).
>>
>
> <joking>
> You may choose to compose a strange number like Knuth is doing with $\pi$
> for \TeX versioning. What about $\sqrt{2}$? :P
> </joking>
>
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Vincent Hennebert <vh...@gmail.com>.
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 never reach phi, can we still call it
FOP phi?
Vincent
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Andreas Delmelle <an...@telenet.be>.
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
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Vincent Hennebert <vh...@gmail.com>.
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).
>>
>> <joking>
>> You may choose to compose a strange number like Knuth is doing with
>> $\pi$ for \TeX versioning. What about $\sqrt{2}$? :P
>> </joking>
>
> Now there's an idea... Doing something with Euler's famous formula,
> perhaps:
> \$-(e^(i*pi))\$ (=1.0) :-)
>
> Just sticking to an 'ordinary' version number seems to dull anyway. I
> don't mind if anyone is confused, quite on the contrary.
The least we can do is to use the golden number [1]:
(1 + sqrt(5))/2 ≈ 1.6180339887
Incidentally this number has been used in book design for many years
[2]. Actually...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#Book_design
Vincent
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Andreas Delmelle <an...@telenet.be>.
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).
>
> <joking>
> You may choose to compose a strange number like Knuth is doing with $
> \pi$ for \TeX versioning. What about $\sqrt{2}$? :P
> </joking>
Now there's an idea... Doing something with Euler's famous formula,
perhaps:
\$-(e^(i*pi))\$ (=1.0) :-)
Just sticking to an 'ordinary' version number seems to dull anyway. I
don't mind if anyone is confused, quite on the contrary.
Cheers
Andreas
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Dario Laera <la...@cs.unibo.it>.
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).
<joking>
You may choose to compose a strange number like Knuth is doing with $
\pi$ for \TeX versioning. What about $\sqrt{2}$? :P
</joking>
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
Looks like there won't be any more voices. The majority seems to favor a
1.0 release. That's fine by me as long as we can break the 0.x curse.
I'm surprised and grateful that we can finally move forward
version-number-wise.
I think we'll need to announce that release (codename "Curse Breaker" ;-))
carefully so people don't suddenly assume we have a 100% implementation
of XSL 1.0 or something. I think it'll make sense to work with the PRC
to do this right. After all, this particular release will create its
ripples even if on a technical level the jump isn't that big.
So my proposal would be to work towards a beta release early next year.
By then the AFP and newIF branches should be merged with trunk.
Hopefully it shouldn't take us another half year to release the final
1.0 after the beta. The previous beta-phase was really much too long.
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's assume 0.20.5 was actually FOP 1.0, and FOP 0.95 was actually FOP
> 2.0. How about calling the next version 2.009 (to be released in early
> 2009). Skip 1.0 entirely since that would only let the expectations rise
> into the sky. FOP had a major redesign which warrants at least a version
> jump of one major version. Not calling it 2.0 means it's not a first
> release from a fresh development branch. That will carry the message
> along that FOP is stable and usable in a productive environment. Hell,
> it's used in production by so many people for so many years.
> OhpointXitis is really bad.
>
> I know we still have about one item left on our pre-1.0 list:
> http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ReleasePlanning
> But that's still going to take a while. I want to revisit this list and
> see what today's view is.
>
> Flame away.
>
> Jeremias Maerki
>
Jeremias Maerki
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Adrian Cumiskey <de...@cumiskey.com>.
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 <vh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip/>
>> 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 from 0.95, moreover. They will wonder what is that revolution
>> that they missed and that justifies such a jump.
>
> I agree with Vincent here. I'd like to finally see a 1.0 release...
> Perhaps we'll be in the minority of having a stable 1.0 release (or at
> least that's the hope!)? ;-)
>
>> The 'least worse' way to stop the <1.0 curse, IMO, is to actually call
>> the next release 1.0, with the following message: the re-design branch
>> has been worked on for quite some time now, it brings many new features
>> and improvements compared to the old 0.20.5; it's considered stable
>> enough to be used in production and 1.0 is used to acknowledge that.
>>
>> The work on changing IPD is likely to bring major changes to the layout
>> engine, which will justify a 1.5 or 2.0 version. Once serious work has
>> been done on optimization, a 2.5 or 3.0 can be released. Once
>> significant features from XSL-FO 1.1 have been added, 3.5 or 4.0. And so
>> on.
>>
>> After all, there are many open-source projects that have been around for
>> years, and whose version numbers are still in 1.x or 2.x.x.
>
> IMHO, we should finally get out of the crib, and call it fop-1.0.
>
> Regards,
>
> The Web Maestro
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:11 AM, Vincent Hennebert <vh...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip/>
> 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 from 0.95, moreover. They will wonder what is that revolution
> that they missed and that justifies such a jump.
I agree with Vincent here. I'd like to finally see a 1.0 release...
Perhaps we'll be in the minority of having a stable 1.0 release (or at
least that's the hope!)? ;-)
> The 'least worse' way to stop the <1.0 curse, IMO, is to actually call
> the next release 1.0, with the following message: the re-design branch
> has been worked on for quite some time now, it brings many new features
> and improvements compared to the old 0.20.5; it's considered stable
> enough to be used in production and 1.0 is used to acknowledge that.
>
> The work on changing IPD is likely to bring major changes to the layout
> engine, which will justify a 1.5 or 2.0 version. Once serious work has
> been done on optimization, a 2.5 or 3.0 can be released. Once
> significant features from XSL-FO 1.1 have been added, 3.5 or 4.0. And so
> on.
>
> After all, there are many open-source projects that have been around for
> years, and whose version numbers are still in 1.x or 2.x.x.
IMHO, we should finally get out of the crib, and call it fop-1.0.
Regards,
The Web Maestro
--
<th...@gmail.com> - <http://ourlil.com/>
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
Re: Updating the FOP release plan
Posted by Vincent Hennebert <vh...@gmail.com>.
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 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 FOP
> 2.0.
Seen from today’s point of view, I very much agree with that.
Actually the first release from the re-design branch (0.90 alpha 1)
should have been called 1.0alpha, 0.91beta should have been called
1.0beta, 0.92beta 1.0RC and 0.93 1.0, or something like that.
> How about calling the next version 2.009 (to be released in early
> 2009).
Hmmm... no. Too many digits after the dot IMO, and not meaningful
enough. If we were to release another version in, say, September, how
would we call it? When the year is used in the versioning scheme, it’s
usually in the form of year.month (Ubuntu, AMD Catalyst drivers, etc.).
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 from 0.95, moreover. They will wonder what is that revolution
that they missed and that justifies such a jump.
The ‘least worse’ way to stop the <1.0 curse, IMO, is to actually call
the next release 1.0, with the following message: the re-design branch
has been worked on for quite some time now, it brings many new features
and improvements compared to the old 0.20.5; it’s considered stable
enough to be used in production and 1.0 is used to acknowledge that.
The work on changing IPD is likely to bring major changes to the layout
engine, which will justify a 1.5 or 2.0 version. Once serious work has
been done on optimization, a 2.5 or 3.0 can be released. Once
significant features from XSL-FO 1.1 have been added, 3.5 or 4.0. And so
on.
After all, there are many open-source projects that have been around for
years, and whose version numbers are still in 1.x or 2.x.x.
> Skip 1.0 entirely since that would only let the expectations rise
> into the sky. FOP had a major redesign which warrants at least a version
> jump of one major version. Not calling it 2.0 means it's not a first
> release from a fresh development branch. That will carry the message
> along that FOP is stable and usable in a productive environment. Hell,
> it's used in production by so many people for so many years.
> OhpointXitis is really bad.
>
> I know we still have about one item left on our pre-1.0 list:
> http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ReleasePlanning
> But that's still going to take a while. I want to revisit this list and
> see what today's view is.
>
> Flame away.
>
> Jeremias Maerki
Vincent