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 Fotis Jannidis <fo...@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> on 2001/04/09 01:23:31 UTC
naming conventions
It's only a small point: I'd rather not put a 'DEV' into the name of the
distribution files, simply because we didn't do this before, so
anybody will think this is a special developer's release.
If we don't distinguish between source and bin release, we could
just have something like fop-0.18.2.zip / fop-0.18.2.tar.gz
Fotis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: naming conventions
Posted by Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca.
Quoting Kelly Campbell <ca...@merlot.channelpoint.com>:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 01:23:31AM +0200, Fotis Jannidis wrote:
> > It's only a small point: I'd rather not put a 'DEV' into the name of the
> > distribution files, simply because we didn't do this before, so
> > anybody will think this is a special developer's release.
>
> +1 because that was my original intention when I added the DEV in the
> build.xml version.
Good point. We'll just have to use some other mechanism (lots of education and
PR, I guess) to keep reminding people that this is a dev distribution. It's a
fine line that we want to tread anyway, between letting people know that this is
not a production piece of software, but is very useable nonetheless.
> > If we don't distinguish between source and bin release, we could
> > just have something like fop-0.18.2.zip / fop-0.18.2.tar.gz
>
> I think we need to eventually get to the point where we have separate
> source and bin dists, with the minimal amount of stuff in the binary dist.
> Our current source dist is 9MB, and the binary one is about half that. I
> used to think bandwidth was getting cheaper and more available, but after
> being disconnected from DSL twice due to both technical problems and a
> provider bankruptcy, I'm not so sure :-(
Agreed. I think the only temporary glitch that we had was deciding what goes in
what, really.
I have cable myself. and a good, reliable connection, but it's still not that
much fun uploading these distributions to locus. And I'm pretty sure that many
people still use dial-up; for them the current source distro size is completely
out to lunch, and the last binary size was just barely tolerable.
Regards,
Arved
---------------------------------------------------------------
This mail was sent through the Nova Scotia Provincial Server,
with technical resources provided by Chebucto Community Net.
http://nsaccess.ns.ca/mail/ http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: naming conventions
Posted by Christian Geisert <Ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
Kelly Campbell wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 01:23:31AM +0200, Fotis Jannidis wrote:
> > It's only a small point: I'd rather not put a 'DEV' into the name of the
> > distribution files, simply because we didn't do this before, so
> > anybody will think this is a special developer's release.
>
> +1 because that was my original intention when I added the DEV in the
> build.xml version.
>
> > If we don't distinguish between source and bin release, we could
> > just have something like fop-0.18.2.zip / fop-0.18.2.tar.gz
++1 (I was confused by the naming...)
Furthermore I've noticed that the new version number is 0.19.0-CVS , but I
had rather expected 0.18.2 according to what Arved wrote about versioning
some weeks ago.
> -Kelly
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: naming conventions
Posted by Fotis Jannidis <fo...@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>.
From: Kelly Campbell <ca...@merlot.channelpoint.com>
> > If we don't distinguish between source and bin release, we could
> > just have something like fop-0.18.2.zip / fop-0.18.2.tar.gz
>
> I think we need to eventually get to the point where we have separate
> source and bin dists, with the minimal amount of stuff in the binary dist.
> Our current source dist is 9MB, and the binary one is about half that. I
> used to think bandwidth was getting cheaper and more available, but after
> being disconnected from DSL twice due to both technical problems and a
> provider bankruptcy, I'm not so sure :-(
In Germany flatrates which meant to make bandwidth and internet
access wider available effectivly disappeared from the market again
:-( With the sole exception of DSL access. I hope I can keep that.
So I also think we should have a bin dist, ready to run, but without
the source and the javadocs. Unpacked the last dist takes 27 MB,
15 MB are alone the javadocs, the source is 3.5 MB, so we could
have instead of 27MB only 8.5 MB to distribute.
I am not sure whether even developers really use the javadocs of
Fop. I could document the way to produce them more extensive
and leave it with that.
What o you think?
Fotis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: naming conventions
Posted by Kelly Campbell <ca...@merlot.channelpoint.com>.
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 01:23:31AM +0200, Fotis Jannidis wrote:
> It's only a small point: I'd rather not put a 'DEV' into the name of the
> distribution files, simply because we didn't do this before, so
> anybody will think this is a special developer's release.
+1 because that was my original intention when I added the DEV in the
build.xml version.
> If we don't distinguish between source and bin release, we could
> just have something like fop-0.18.2.zip / fop-0.18.2.tar.gz
I think we need to eventually get to the point where we have separate
source and bin dists, with the minimal amount of stuff in the binary dist.
Our current source dist is 9MB, and the binary one is about half that. I
used to think bandwidth was getting cheaper and more available, but after
being disconnected from DSL twice due to both technical problems and a
provider bankruptcy, I'm not so sure :-(
-Kelly
--
Kelly A. Campbell Software Engineer
<ca...@merlotxml.org> ChannelPoint, Inc.
<ca...@channelpoint.com> Colorado Springs, Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org