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 Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com> on 2003/11/12 18:02:28 UTC
CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Is it possible we could implement a system to get the CVS nightlies
(src &/or bin) for fop-1.0Dev zipped and/or tar'd for simple
downloading and available from the Dev tab? Having to log in with CVS
access is kind of a pain, and I don't know of another way to download
the stuff.
It might also be nice to have at least a "most current" (assuming
there've been bugfixes ;-p) for the 0.20.5 version as well.
Web Maestro Clay
Re: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Clay Leeds wrote:
> BTW, IIRC it's been discussed on the list (ad nauseam) that the official
> "tag" name is HEAD, but frankly, I don't remember why so many terms
> appear to be synonymous.
Yes, standardizing language in the docs makes sense. However
> re-tag it in CVS?
I don't think this is appropriate or even necessary.
> I guess that's not really worth it, although to be honest I don't know
> if there've been any updates to the "fop-0_20_2-maintain" branch (i.e.,
> 0.20.5).
I've comitted the patch for early releasing areas generated by table
FOs after the 0.20.5 final release, which is essential for rendering
large tables without running out of memory. However, the AWT renderer
gets NPEs occasionally, although I don't know whether this caused by
my patch or something else.
J.Pietschmann
Re: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Victor Mote wrote:
> -1 on the name. There is no such thing as FOP 1.0DR1. It is a naming
> convention only, and IMO, not a good one.
Correct. What about "current development version"?
J.Pietschmann
RE: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by Victor Mote <vi...@outfitr.com>.
Clay Leeds wrote:
> hehehe.. That's what I was looking for (I _thought_ there was a link
> like that!). Only problem is, I scoured the FOP "Home" and
> "Development" tabs and couldn't find it. If I couldn't find it after
> searching (& searching & searching...), how's the average shmoe
> supposed to... wait a minute. I found the link. It's on the main FOP
> download page (not visible from the Dev tab). In addition, it doesn't
> indicate that it is fop-1.0DR1. I'd like to highlight the "SNAPSHOT"
> better to, among other things, properly identify the snapshots as being
> fop-1_0DR1 (or "HEAD", or "currently active FOP development branch" or
> whatever the darn thing is called).
>
> For example,
>
> CURRENT:
> * Download a CVS snapshot from the cvs files here. These snapshots are
> built approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their
> creation time embedded in their names. Please note that CVS snapshots
> are made only for the "redesign" branch.
>
> MODIFIED:
> * [b]FOP 1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
> from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
> approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
> time embedded in their names. Please note that CVS snapshots are
> made only for the "redesign" branch.
+1 on the concept of bolding the text.
-1 on the name. There is no such thing as FOP 1.0DR1. It is a naming
convention only, and IMO, not a good one.
> BTW, IIRC it's been discussed on the list (ad nauseam) that the
> official "tag" name is HEAD, but frankly, I don't remember why so many
> terms appear to be synonymous. Unless I'm mistaken, the site refers to
> "HEAD" using the following other terms: "Redesign" (FOP=>Download),
> "FOP 1.0DR1" (FOP=>Status), "FOP-1.0Dev" (don't recall where this was).
> Does it make sense to standardize on this and re-tag it in CVS? Should
> we also eradicate all other terms for it so visitors will know what to
> refer to? Obviously in the above "modified" paragraph "redesign" should
> be changed to whatever is decided.
>
> I'm not trying to be nit-picky here. I just don't want others to get
> confused as they try to figure this stuff out.
+1. This has crossed my mind many times, but so far I haven't made the
effort. This is partly because the hope has *always* been that we are just
around the corner from having only one development line again. Thank you for
volunteering :-)
I'll address the naming issue in my response to your subsequent post.
Victor Mote
Re: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Clay Leeds wrote:
> (Personally, I like "FOP-1.0DR1"
Hmm. I'm not sure the first release from the trunk should be an "1.0".
OTOH, TRUNK and HEAD are CVS specific terms which will probably confuse
the common FOP user. Too bad, I like HEAD.
J.Pietschmann
RE: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clay Leeds [mailto:cleeds@medata.com]
>
> The "vote" portion relates to standardizing on a name for the
> Development Version. I would like this to be site-wide (and maybe I'm
> just the guy to do it), but for now I'm only referring to changing
> references on FOP/Download. (I understand it doesn't make sense to
> change the tag in CVS). Here're the contestants:
>
<snip />
> (Personally, I like "FOP-1.0DR1" so that's what I'll use in my [PATCH].
> I'm not calling for a vote--a) I don't think I can call a VOTE yet; b)
> does this need a VOTE?--but it would be good to know that everyone's on
> the same page... ;-p)
>
Well, I guess room could be made for types of votes that can be called by
'mere' contributors.
> > +1, although I never really experienced problems with it, I can
> > imagine that
> > the average FOP-noob gets a bit confused by all this name-juggling...
>
> Having used FOP for over a year, I don't consider myself an average
> FOP-noob, in spite of the fact that I have trouble keeping the names
> straight. ;-p
>
True, and perhaps all the more reason to clean it up a bit.
>
> Is CVS the only place where the new and improved 0.20.5 can be
> downloaded?
I think so, yes.
> Does it make sense to generate a "snapshot" each time updates are made
> to the 0_20_2-maintain branch, since "everyone" is using it? If updates
are
> made, they are significant. I have to assume that the 0.20.5 binary is
> unchanged else the name would change to indicate updates (0.20.5a or
something).
>
Hmmm, probably not, but as I pointed out, I think, ideally, the 'normal'
download link should point to version 0.20.5 with the latest
bugfixes/patches applied (keeping previous versions stored in a lib
somewhere, should anyone have need for them). It would, in any case, be kind
of absurd to have users download the 0.20.5 binary (as it was first released
in July) --users who, since they're users of the binary version, may have no
experience with Java building at all - and then, later on, *if* they want to
enjoy the comfort of some patch or bugfix, require them to get familiar with
CVS and have them rebuild FOP...
Cheerz,
Andreas
RE: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter B. West [mailto:pbwest@powerup.com.au]
>
> I think you are being unnecessarily harsh here towards Clay, and Clay
> has been getting a hard time from more that one source lately. Clay's
Jeez, I hope you're not referring to my alluding to any laziness on his
part... (That was meant more as a joke, which Clay, hopefully, understood.)
Actually, I appreciate his efforts in getting a grip on CVS --which I also
believe to be a conditio sine qua non for potential committers (whether code
or docs). One reason also, why I haven't made any real commitments so far,
is just that I still don't consider myself to be up to speed WRT running CVS
diffs enough. (I know, it's really not that hard... Well, ok, maybe it's
just a *lame* excuse on my part :) --I'll work on that one, I promise!)
> suggestions, as I recall, are aimed at making FOP as accessible as
> possible to the widest range of users. I and others (Victor is one who
> springs to immediately to mind) want the FOP development process to be
> as accessible as possible to the widest possible range of users. That
> FOP is currently so difficult is a thorn in the side of this subproject.
>
That is indeed a very worthy aim... No better way to get people involved in
the game than clearly showing what it's all about.
> (Note my stance of near-perpetual disagreement. I worry about it
sometimes.)
>
Well, as long as they're balanced out someway ('Even though...') no reason
to worry, right?
> Clay's comments are valuable, and Clay is actively contributing to
> making FOP a better product. I don't see that we want to discourage
100% agreed here.
> that. My concern about the snapshots is only that actually building and
> storing them is overkill. Clarifying what is happening on HEAD and
But this... overkill? I thought these snapshots were 'automatically'
generated. If they are, then I don't really see what the overkill is here.
(Besides that, only four of those snapshots remain actually downloadable as
a tarball at all times...)
BTW: What exactly *is* the story on these? Is this something common about
all Apache projects, or a FOP-specific decision that has been taken some
time ago?
Cheerz,
Andreas
RE: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clay Leeds [mailto:cleeds@medata.com]
>
> Glad to hear it was working on Mac OS X. I actually haven't tried yet
> on Mac OS X. I attempted to run it under Win XP Pro but got the
> NoClassDefFound error. I didn't appear to need to build it, since it
> contained all of the JARs, etc. If I need to build it, then that would
Yesterday, I posted that reaction kind of blindly.
Was more of a strong suspicion than a certainty, but having checked the
latest tarball I dl'ed, I can confirm that it contains no build dir. Apart
from the SDK itself and Apache Ant, it _does_ contain everything else you
need to be able to build it, like the xerces, xalan and batik jars, (esp. on
Mac, since everything's been taken care of with such rigour over there)
In any case, should you need further assistance, don't hesitate to contact
us (although, I do share some concerns with Glen here, so best to do this
off-list, unless of course it's closely related to the FOP build page
containing instructions that are too vague or need adjustments according to
you).
Cheerz,
Andreas
Re: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
On Friday, November 14, 2003, at 03:48 PM, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> And just for the record, I should add that I _did_ succesfully build
> and run
> the 1.0Dev a little while ago on MacOS X.
> You *could* experience difficulty, if you don't have the latest Java
> 1.4 SDK
> already installed --a few weeks ago, I gathered on another list that it
> contained a few nasty bugs (not sure what kind; didn't bother to check
> the
> Apple website myself, as I never experienced problems with it up to
> now),
> and Apple found no better than to just make the download link
> inactive, so
> 1.3.1 was the only downloadable Java SDK for some time... perhaps
> still is.
Glad to hear it was working on Mac OS X. I actually haven't tried yet
on Mac OS X. I attempted to run it under Win XP Pro but got the
NoClassDefFound error. I didn't appear to need to build it, since it
contained all of the JARs, etc. If I need to build it, then that would
explain things. I don't have a compiler on my WinXP box, but I do under
Mac OS X (Unix--or Unix-like if SCO is listening--underpinnings are so
bitchin!).
RE: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas L. Delmelle [mailto:a_l.delmelle@pandora.be]
>
> ( Snapshots only contain the sources, and compiled versions of the library
> jars AFAIK. It's a BIY kit. )
>
And just for the record, I should add that I _did_ succesfully build and run
the 1.0Dev a little while ago on MacOS X.
You *could* experience difficulty, if you don't have the latest Java 1.4 SDK
already installed --a few weeks ago, I gathered on another list that it
contained a few nasty bugs (not sure what kind; didn't bother to check the
Apple website myself, as I never experienced problems with it up to now),
and Apple found no better than to just make the download link inactive, so
1.3.1 was the only downloadable Java SDK for some time... perhaps still is.
Have fun!
Greetz,
Andreas
RE: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clay Leeds [mailto:cleeds@medata.com]
>
> (I wonder how many builds
> I'll have to download before I realize the problem really is--or
> isn't--my CLASSPATH)...
>
Ahem... Maestro, I _think_ you are, at the moment, downloading none at all
:s
( Snapshots only contain the sources, and compiled versions of the library
jars AFAIK. It's a BIY kit. )
Time to check the FOP-Build page...
;)
Cheerz,
Andreas
Re: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gr...@yahoo.com>.
*Great*--happy to hear you are getting CVS set up at
work. This will help both with documentation, and
later, if you desire, with coding.
Now, whatever else was being discussed w.r.t. builds
on the FOP site, etc., between you and the other
committers & contributors, please continue on with
those discussions...I haven't been following the
thread that closely and don't have that strong of a
preference one way or the other.
Glen
--- Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com> wrote:
> FWIW, my company
> implemented CVS for a few
> projects we're working on only a couple of months
> ago, and I (in spite
> of my CVS-literacy level) have been able to set up a
> couple of others'
> CVS access as well.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Re: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
NOTE: some of the following may be off-topic (not to mention display my
level(s) of literacy on my sleeve), but might (hopefully)
prompt/continue discussion about how to improve FOP, its documentation,
and overall experience (for users *&* potential developers).
I definitely appreciate the votes of confidence, and recognize my
newbieness in many regards. FWIW, my company implemented CVS for a few
projects we're working on only a couple of months ago, and I (in spite
of my CVS-literacy level) have been able to set up a couple of others'
CVS access as well. Just the same, I consider myself more of a CVS-noob
than a FOP-noob (although others may cheerfully disagree ;-p). However,
I set them up (as I am set up as well) using a CVS GUI tool (similar to
WinCVS). I mention this, because I was asked some time ago by some
fop-dev folks to "by all means test HEAD on your own system" and let us
know what happens. Well, I was having problems working with CVS on
apache.org (one GUI client [MacCVSX] introduced weird/buggy menus, but
worked--although my confidence was shaken by the weird menu bugs--and I
never could resolve the problem, while another GUI client
[MacCVSClientX] wouldn't connect no matter what I tried). Anyway, I've
resorted to working with the functioning but buggy MacCVSX client.
FWIW, I haven't been using the command line version because I couldn't
get that to work remotely either. I could, however, get it to work if I
download the source to my computer. However, I couldn't figure out how
to get the snapshot for HEAD (thanks for the tip Andreas!) because I
was so confused about what to look for (see prev msgs in this thread).
Believe it or not, FOP (and now Forrest) is what prompted me to start
using CVS in the first place. My desire to make FOP better has been
relegated to improving the web site through the submission of [PATCH]s
(but not really knowing which branch is actually the LIVE/production
site). This, because my JAVA programming abilities are nascent at best.
My company started using CVS for in-house projects after I & my mgr
pushed and pushed. We now have my in-house XSL-FO documents, batch
scripts, DTDs and Documentation in CVS where anyone (with permissions)
can access them.
Peter is absolutely correct that my goal here is to make FOP easier
(and more fun!) to use (and hopefully develop for). Having been a
teacher in the past who had to write grants to get computer hardware
and software--and then learn how to fix and maintain them myself with
no "training"--impressed upon me the importance of having well-written
documentation. It also helped kindle a desire to make things work
better. Rather than just wish something would do X, I found that when
most product developers hear about the X idea, they wonder why it
wasn't there in the first place. Either that or they tell me why X is a
dumb idea.
On a side note, now that I've finally downloaded a snapshot of
fop-1.0Dev, and I'm unable to get it to work (NoClassDefFound errors),
although I've checked an re-checked my CLASSPATH and LOCALCLASSPATH
(1.0Dev) variables. 0.20.5 works on the same machine in a sibling
directory. I've seen mention of problems with builds, and am guessing
that this is an extension of that problem. I wouldn't mind having
access to the most recent "stable" build of the "unstable" current
development version accessible. Perhaps, though, this is exactly the
kind of overkill Peter is talking about at the end of his POST. I guess
I'll download an earlier build and test that. (I wonder how many builds
I'll have to download before I realize the problem really is--or
isn't--my CLASSPATH)...
Re: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>.
Glen Mazza wrote:
> --- "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Then there is no need for us to actually construct
>>development
>>snapshots. The build process is not onerous, and it
>>doesn't take 12
>>hours to build.
>>
>
>
> I agree--and am concerned that the primary motivation
> for these snapshots is Clay simply not taking the time
> to learn CVS, the version control standard of the open
> source world. Commands such as "cvs checkout xml-fop"
> and "cvs update -dPC" are hardly traumatizing. All
> open-source workers need to learn them, Clay included!
>
> Another concern is that since FOP 1.0 is not formed
> enough yet, we might not want *everyone* downloading
> it at this time. It may be to our benefit to continue
> having only the "real" developers, i.e., those
> CVS-literate, looking at it right now.
>
> Otherwise you run the risk of the FOP-DEV ML
> degenerating into "How do I download the J2SDK?", "How
> do I build FOP?", "How do I get Ant to work?"--type
> questions. Let's face it, when you have the hurdle of
> you-need-to-know-CVS-to-get-at-the-code, you remain
> with a relatively highly skilled user base, a user
> base that doesn't need to ask these types of
> questions. This is what we are currently blessed with
> on FOP-DEV and, given the nature of our work, what we
> probably should continue with.
>
> At any rate, FOP being orders of magnitude more
> difficult than CVS, those unable to understand the
> latter are probably not going to be able to help us
> code the former!
Glen,
I think you are being unnecessarily harsh here towards Clay, and Clay
has been getting a hard time from more that one source lately. Clay's
suggestions, as I recall, are aimed at making FOP as accessible as
possible to the widest range of users. I and others (Victor is one who
springs to immediately to mind) want the FOP development process to be
as accessible as possible to the widest possible range of users. That
FOP is currently so difficult is a thorn in the side of this subproject.
Even though I disagree with the feasibility of Victor's work, I applaud
his attempts to rationalize the structure of FOP. Even though I
disagree with the direction of the re-design, I concur with Joerg in
applauding your efforts to get it moving again. (Note my stance of
near-perpetual disagreement. I worry about it sometimes.)
Clay's comments are valuable, and Clay is actively contributing to
making FOP a better product. I don't see that we want to discourage
that. My concern about the snapshots is only that actually building and
storing them is overkill. Clarifying what is happening on HEAD and
where the stable release is to be found is a necessary part of making
the web site and FOP itself more usable.
Peter
--
Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
Re: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gr...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
>
> Then there is no need for us to actually construct
> development
> snapshots. The build process is not onerous, and it
> doesn't take 12
> hours to build.
>
I agree--and am concerned that the primary motivation
for these snapshots is Clay simply not taking the time
to learn CVS, the version control standard of the open
source world. Commands such as "cvs checkout xml-fop"
and "cvs update -dPC" are hardly traumatizing. All
open-source workers need to learn them, Clay included!
Another concern is that since FOP 1.0 is not formed
enough yet, we might not want *everyone* downloading
it at this time. It may be to our benefit to continue
having only the "real" developers, i.e., those
CVS-literate, looking at it right now.
Otherwise you run the risk of the FOP-DEV ML
degenerating into "How do I download the J2SDK?", "How
do I build FOP?", "How do I get Ant to work?"--type
questions. Let's face it, when you have the hurdle of
you-need-to-know-CVS-to-get-at-the-code, you remain
with a relatively highly skilled user base, a user
base that doesn't need to ask these types of
questions. This is what we are currently blessed with
on FOP-DEV and, given the nature of our work, what we
probably should continue with.
At any rate, FOP being orders of magnitude more
difficult than CVS, those unable to understand the
latter are probably not going to be able to help us
code the former!
Glen
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Re: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>.
Victor Mote wrote:
> Clay Leeds wrote:
>
>
>>Perhaps it was laziness (ouch! ;-p), but I'd like to think not. I spent
>>10-15 minutes looking on the site to determine where I could download
>>the the 1.0Dev version to test with--actually, I've gone searching a
>>*bunch* of times, only to get frustrated and "come back later" to find
>>it. Truth is, I didn't know *what* to look for and the term "snapshot"
>>didn't come to mind...
>>
>>Anyway, I will be submitting a [PATCH] to change the download page to
>>highlight "FOP 1.0DR1 Snapshot" shortly. However, I might also modify
>>the page to indicate the following links/headings:
>>
>>* Binary or Source?
>>* Current Release Binary Download
>>* Current and Development Release Source Downloads
>>
>>I'll then change the content of the "Current and Development Release
>>Source Downloads" section accordingly:
>>
>>
>>><snip/>
>>>
>>>>MODIFIED:
>>>>* [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
>>>> from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
>>>> approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
>>>> time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
>>>>are
>>>> made only for the "HEAD" branch.
>>
>>>>* [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
>>>> from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
>>>> approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
>>>> time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
>>>>are
>>>> made only for the "HEAD" branch.
>>
>>* [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
>> from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
>> approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
>> time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
>>are
>> made only for the "HEAD" branch of [a
>>href="http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-fop/
>>?only_with_tag=HEAD"]CVS[/a].
>>
>>I'd also like to standardize on what we'll be calling this on the site.
>>Here are the contestants I'm aware of:
>>
>>Redesign
>>TRUNK
>
>
> +1
>
>
>>HEAD
>>FOP 1.0Dev
>>FOP-1.0Dev
>>FOP1.0Dev
>>FOP 1.0DR1
>>FOP-1.0DR1
>>FOP1.0DR1
>>
>>(Personally, I like "FOP-1.0DR1" so that's what I'll use in my [PATCH].
>>I'm not calling for a vote--a) I don't think I can call a VOTE yet; b)
>>does this need a VOTE?--but it would be good to know that everyone's on
>>the same page... ;-p)
>>
>>
>>
>>>The term "Redesign" will become obsolete as soon as 1.0 gets released.
>>>
>>>(FYI: "FOP-1.0Dev" turns up on the command line as version indicator )
>>
>>Obsolescence. Too true! Hehehe! Anyway, I thought I'd seen FOP-1.0Dev
>>somewhere!
>
>
> On the naming issue, I think it is worth distinguishing between 1) branch
> names, 2) tags for those branches, and 3) version IDs. What we are really
> naming here is a branch, and the tags and versions should not be confused
> with it. Our "maintenance" branch is tagged "fop-0_20_2-maintain" from which
> we get version 0.20.5. Within CVS, the trunk branch is tagged "HEAD" from
> which we have no current versions. Of the choices given, only "trunk" and
> "head" make any sense to me. I have a very strong dislike for naming it
> 1.0_anything or any other transitory name like "redesign". (I have no
> problem with using these terms as we have, but dislike them as permanent
> names). I especially dislike 1.0_anything as I don't have any reason to
> think that we are working on 1.0 yet.
>
HEAD is the default in CVS. It is probably worth noting this in any
user documentation. As HEAD will be with us for as long as we use CVS,
it makes sense to me, while we are talking about reducing naming
confusion, to use HEAD as much as possible, with notes to the effect
that HEAD is the unstable/unusable (depending on requirements and the
current state of HEAD) development branch, while the stable releases
come from the fop-0_20_2-maintain branch. This name is plainly
misleading, but, as no further major development on the branch, it is
probably not worth the effort to fix this.
(If it were considered worthwhile, the simplest way would probably be to
create a branch off fop-0_20_2-maintain, say fop-0_20-maintenance (or
FOP_0-20_maintenance). Because all access to previous releases and
release candidates should be by release tag, rather than branch tag, the
fop-0_20_2-maintain tag would fade into the background, even though it
is still the basis of all earlier post 0.20.2 releases.)
We can't create a *branch* FOP_1-0_Dev or whatever, because, AFAIK, as
soon as you try to create a branch rooted at HEAD, you spin of a new
branch, while HEAD goes merrily on its way.
On the other hand, it is easy and essential to tag the tree at any point
of interest. All of our release candidates and releases should be able
to be reconstituted from a given tag.
HEAD snapshots can be indicated by a date-time specifier, because they
can be reconstituted from the tree using that date-time marker. This
requires a little developer discipline. If we advise users that the
tree will be update stable at a certain time, say, 00:00 GMT, developers
should not perform a series of checkins across that time. (Although
this is not, strictly speaking, essential.)
Then there is no need for us to actually construct development
snapshots. The build process is not onerous, and it doesn't take 12
hours to build. If users are told to checkout development builds from
the tree using a -D specifier with 00:00 GMT time, we can always get
back to the same source tree in the event of some non-reproducible bug
being reporting by a HEAD user.
There are a few issues with sticky date specifiers, which we will have
to work out and document for users. Basically, we need a formula for
getting from one -D checkout to another with the minimum of anguish.
Peter
--
Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
RE: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by Victor Mote <vi...@outfitr.com>.
Clay Leeds wrote:
> Perhaps it was laziness (ouch! ;-p), but I'd like to think not. I spent
> 10-15 minutes looking on the site to determine where I could download
> the the 1.0Dev version to test with--actually, I've gone searching a
> *bunch* of times, only to get frustrated and "come back later" to find
> it. Truth is, I didn't know *what* to look for and the term "snapshot"
> didn't come to mind...
>
> Anyway, I will be submitting a [PATCH] to change the download page to
> highlight "FOP 1.0DR1 Snapshot" shortly. However, I might also modify
> the page to indicate the following links/headings:
>
> * Binary or Source?
> * Current Release Binary Download
> * Current and Development Release Source Downloads
>
> I'll then change the content of the "Current and Development Release
> Source Downloads" section accordingly:
>
> > <snip/>
> >>
> >> MODIFIED:
> >> * [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
> >> from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
> >> approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
> >> time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
> >> are
> >> made only for the "HEAD" branch.
>
> >> * [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
> >> from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
> >> approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
> >> time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
> >> are
> >> made only for the "HEAD" branch.
>
> * [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
> from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
> approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
> time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
> are
> made only for the "HEAD" branch of [a
> href="http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-fop/
> ?only_with_tag=HEAD"]CVS[/a].
>
> I'd also like to standardize on what we'll be calling this on the site.
> Here are the contestants I'm aware of:
>
> Redesign
> TRUNK
+1
> HEAD
> FOP 1.0Dev
> FOP-1.0Dev
> FOP1.0Dev
> FOP 1.0DR1
> FOP-1.0DR1
> FOP1.0DR1
>
> (Personally, I like "FOP-1.0DR1" so that's what I'll use in my [PATCH].
> I'm not calling for a vote--a) I don't think I can call a VOTE yet; b)
> does this need a VOTE?--but it would be good to know that everyone's on
> the same page... ;-p)
>
> > +1, although I never really experienced problems with it, I can
> > imagine that
> > the average FOP-noob gets a bit confused by all this name-juggling...
>
> Having used FOP for over a year, I don't consider myself an average
> FOP-noob, in spite of the fact that I have trouble keeping the names
> straight. ;-p
>
> > The term "Redesign" will become obsolete as soon as 1.0 gets released.
> >
> > (FYI: "FOP-1.0Dev" turns up on the command line as version indicator )
>
> Obsolescence. Too true! Hehehe! Anyway, I thought I'd seen FOP-1.0Dev
> somewhere!
On the naming issue, I think it is worth distinguishing between 1) branch
names, 2) tags for those branches, and 3) version IDs. What we are really
naming here is a branch, and the tags and versions should not be confused
with it. Our "maintenance" branch is tagged "fop-0_20_2-maintain" from which
we get version 0.20.5. Within CVS, the trunk branch is tagged "HEAD" from
which we have no current versions. Of the choices given, only "trunk" and
"head" make any sense to me. I have a very strong dislike for naming it
1.0_anything or any other transitory name like "redesign". (I have no
problem with using these terms as we have, but dislike them as permanent
names). I especially dislike 1.0_anything as I don't have any reason to
think that we are working on 1.0 yet.
Yes, trying to decide what the name should be was another reason I never
tackled this job.
Victor Mote
Re: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
The "vote" portion relates to standardizing on a name for the
Development Version. I would like this to be site-wide (and maybe I'm
just the guy to do it), but for now I'm only referring to changing
references on FOP/Download. (I understand it doesn't make sense to
change the tag in CVS). Here're the contestants:
On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 01:45 AM, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> Yeah, hidden all the way down on the page ( could cause problems with
> *very*
> lazy users viewing the site at lo-res? :) )
Perhaps it was laziness (ouch! ;-p), but I'd like to think not. I spent
10-15 minutes looking on the site to determine where I could download
the the 1.0Dev version to test with--actually, I've gone searching a
*bunch* of times, only to get frustrated and "come back later" to find
it. Truth is, I didn't know *what* to look for and the term "snapshot"
didn't come to mind...
Anyway, I will be submitting a [PATCH] to change the download page to
highlight "FOP 1.0DR1 Snapshot" shortly. However, I might also modify
the page to indicate the following links/headings:
* Binary or Source?
* Current Release Binary Download
* Current and Development Release Source Downloads
I'll then change the content of the "Current and Development Release
Source Downloads" section accordingly:
> <snip/>
>>
>> MODIFIED:
>> * [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
>> from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
>> approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
>> time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
>> are
>> made only for the "HEAD" branch.
>> * [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
>> from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
>> approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
>> time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
>> are
>> made only for the "HEAD" branch.
* [b]FOP-1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
time embedded in their names. Please note that these CVS snapshots
are
made only for the "HEAD" branch of [a
href="http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-fop/
?only_with_tag=HEAD"]CVS[/a].
I'd also like to standardize on what we'll be calling this on the site.
Here are the contestants I'm aware of:
Redesign
TRUNK
HEAD
FOP 1.0Dev
FOP-1.0Dev
FOP1.0Dev
FOP 1.0DR1
FOP-1.0DR1
FOP1.0DR1
(Personally, I like "FOP-1.0DR1" so that's what I'll use in my [PATCH].
I'm not calling for a vote--a) I don't think I can call a VOTE yet; b)
does this need a VOTE?--but it would be good to know that everyone's on
the same page... ;-p)
> +1, although I never really experienced problems with it, I can
> imagine that
> the average FOP-noob gets a bit confused by all this name-juggling...
Having used FOP for over a year, I don't consider myself an average
FOP-noob, in spite of the fact that I have trouble keeping the names
straight. ;-p
> The term "Redesign" will become obsolete as soon as 1.0 gets released.
>
> (FYI: "FOP-1.0Dev" turns up on the command line as version indicator )
Obsolescence. Too true! Hehehe! Anyway, I thought I'd seen FOP-1.0Dev
somewhere!
>> I guess that's not really worth it, although to be honest I don't know
>> if there've been any updates to the "fop-0_20_2-maintain" branch
>> (i.e.,
>> 0.20.5). Have there been (the Release Notes don't indicate any
>> changes)? If so, it might be good to identify what they are somewhere.
>> If there are not, then never mind.
>
> Release notes only indicate changes compared to the previous version (
> 0.20.4 ). If I'm not mistaken, Glen has applied a few (although I
> believe it
> to be very few) patches to 0.20.5 since its release in July. ( amongst
> others the printJobName displaying as 'FOP Document' ).
Is CVS the only place where the new and improved 0.20.5 can be
downloaded? Does it make sense to generate a "snapshot" each time
updates are made to the 0_20_2-maintain branch, since "everyone" is
using it? If updates are made, they are significant. I have to assume
that the 0.20.5 binary is unchanged else the name would change to
indicate updates (0.20.5a or something).
> Obviously would also be quite an effort to update the Release Notes
> with
> every little bugfix/patch being applied, but if you're volunteering,
> who are
> we to stand in your way ;)
I wouldn't mind making these types of changes. It's not like we make
changes to 0.20.5 very often... ;-p
RE: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clay Leeds [mailto:cleeds@medata.com]
>
> hehehe.. That's what I was looking for (I _thought_ there was a link
> like that!). Only problem is, I scoured the FOP "Home" and
> "Development" tabs and couldn't find it. If I couldn't find it after
> searching (& searching & searching...), how's the average shmoe
> supposed to... wait a minute. I found the link. It's on the main FOP
> download page (not visible from the Dev tab). In addition, it doesn't
Yeah, hidden all the way down on the page ( could cause problems with *very*
lazy users viewing the site at lo-res? :) )
<snip/>
>
> MODIFIED:
> * [b]FOP 1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
> from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
> approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
> time embedded in their names. Please note that CVS snapshots are
> made only for the "redesign" branch.
>
+1, although I never really experienced problems with it, I can imagine that
the average FOP-noob gets a bit confused by all this name-juggling...
> BTW, IIRC it's been discussed on the list (ad nauseam) that the
> official "tag" name is HEAD, but frankly, I don't remember why so many
> terms appear to be synonymous. Unless I'm mistaken, the site refers to
> "HEAD" using the following other terms: "Redesign" (FOP=>Download),
> "FOP 1.0DR1" (FOP=>Status), "FOP-1.0Dev" (don't recall where this was).
> Does it make sense to standardize on this and re-tag it in CVS? Should
Probably not in CVS, 1.0 can be obtained with tag 'HEAD' / 'MAIN'. It would
definitely make sense to standardize it on the website though... The term
"Redesign" will become obsolete as soon as 1.0 gets released.
(FYI: "FOP-1.0Dev" turns up on the command line as version indicator )
>
> I guess that's not really worth it, although to be honest I don't know
> if there've been any updates to the "fop-0_20_2-maintain" branch (i.e.,
> 0.20.5). Have there been (the Release Notes don't indicate any
> changes)? If so, it might be good to identify what they are somewhere.
> If there are not, then never mind.
>
Release notes only indicate changes compared to the previous version (
0.20.4 ). If I'm not mistaken, Glen has applied a few (although I believe it
to be very few) patches to 0.20.5 since its release in July. ( amongst
others the printJobName displaying as 'FOP Document' ).
Obviously would also be quite an effort to update the Release Notes with
every little bugfix/patch being applied, but if you're volunteering, who are
we to stand in your way ;)
Greetz,
Andreas
Re: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 12:51 PM, Andreas L. Delmelle
wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Clay Leeds [mailto:cleeds@medata.com]
>>
>> Is it possible we could implement a system to get the CVS nightlies
>> (src &/or bin) for fop-1.0Dev zipped and/or tar'd for simple
>> downloading and available from the Dev tab? Having to log in with CVS
>> access is kind of a pain, and I don't know of another way to download
>> the stuff.
>
> Maestro,
>
> Aren't these (sources) already at your disposal as the snapshots on
> http://cvs.apache.org/snapshots/xml-fop/ ?
>
> Just a guess... :)
hehehe.. That's what I was looking for (I _thought_ there was a link
like that!). Only problem is, I scoured the FOP "Home" and
"Development" tabs and couldn't find it. If I couldn't find it after
searching (& searching & searching...), how's the average shmoe
supposed to... wait a minute. I found the link. It's on the main FOP
download page (not visible from the Dev tab). In addition, it doesn't
indicate that it is fop-1.0DR1. I'd like to highlight the "SNAPSHOT"
better to, among other things, properly identify the snapshots as being
fop-1_0DR1 (or "HEAD", or "currently active FOP development branch" or
whatever the darn thing is called).
For example,
CURRENT:
* Download a CVS snapshot from the cvs files here. These snapshots are
built approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their
creation time embedded in their names. Please note that CVS snapshots
are made only for the "redesign" branch.
MODIFIED:
* [b]FOP 1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1
from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built
approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation
time embedded in their names. Please note that CVS snapshots are
made only for the "redesign" branch.
BTW, IIRC it's been discussed on the list (ad nauseam) that the
official "tag" name is HEAD, but frankly, I don't remember why so many
terms appear to be synonymous. Unless I'm mistaken, the site refers to
"HEAD" using the following other terms: "Redesign" (FOP=>Download),
"FOP 1.0DR1" (FOP=>Status), "FOP-1.0Dev" (don't recall where this was).
Does it make sense to standardize on this and re-tag it in CVS? Should
we also eradicate all other terms for it so visitors will know what to
refer to? Obviously in the above "modified" paragraph "redesign" should
be changed to whatever is decided.
I'm not trying to be nit-picky here. I just don't want others to get
confused as they try to figure this stuff out.
>> It might also be nice to have at least a "most current" (assuming
>> there've been bugfixes ;-p) for the 0.20.5 version as well.
>
> These are not available, might come in handy, but would it still be
> worth
> the effort? I guess, to the extent possible, the actual link to the
> 0.20.5
> distro should just point to a package for the latest update...
>
> Greetz,
>
> Andreas
I guess that's not really worth it, although to be honest I don't know
if there've been any updates to the "fop-0_20_2-maintain" branch (i.e.,
0.20.5). Have there been (the Release Notes don't indicate any
changes)? If so, it might be good to identify what they are somewhere.
If there are not, then never mind.
RE: CVS (src & bin) zip'd up for nightlies?
Posted by "Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clay Leeds [mailto:cleeds@medata.com]
>
> Is it possible we could implement a system to get the CVS nightlies
> (src &/or bin) for fop-1.0Dev zipped and/or tar'd for simple
> downloading and available from the Dev tab? Having to log in with CVS
> access is kind of a pain, and I don't know of another way to download
> the stuff.
Maestro,
Aren't these (sources) already at your disposal as the snapshots on
http://cvs.apache.org/snapshots/xml-fop/ ?
Just a guess... :)
>
> It might also be nice to have at least a "most current" (assuming
> there've been bugfixes ;-p) for the 0.20.5 version as well.
>
These are not available, might come in handy, but would it still be worth
the effort? I guess, to the extent possible, the actual link to the 0.20.5
distro should just point to a package for the latest update...
Greetz,
Andreas