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 Vincent Hennebert <vi...@anyware-tech.com> on 2008/03/04 11:10:30 UTC
Release Date
Hi,
First, let me insist that the next release should be called 0.95 beta,
according to the Apache documentation [1]. Release candidates are
targetted at developers and users following the development, and I think
we want to reach users outside the project (DocBook users being part of
them). We must be consistent with the Apache naming scheme IMO.
Also, I have two pending changes regarding tables:
- support for backgrounds on table-column and header/footer/body
- conflict between fixed row height and forced break (if a forced break
occurs before the row height is reached it gets ignored). I know of at
least one user who is looking forward to seeing this bug fixed.
I think it would be good to have those two features available in the
next release. That shouldn’t take more than one week to finish them.
Shouldn’t be a big deal to wait one more week? And that doesn’t prevent
us from preparing everything but the artifacts building.
WDYT?
Vincent
[1] http://apache.org/dev/release.html#release-typeso
--
Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
Re: Release Date
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
On 04.03.2008 11:55:36 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > On 04.03.2008 11:10:30 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> First, let me insist that the next release should be called 0.95 beta,
> >> according to the Apache documentation [1]. Release candidates are
> >> targetted at developers and users following the development, and I think
> >> we want to reach users outside the project (DocBook users being part of
> >> them). We must be consistent with the Apache naming scheme IMO.
> >
> > Whatever. I'm not sure if [1] really reflects a strict policy. I
> > remember discussions about the membership around this topic some time
> > ago. Several FOPers stated they prefer "RC" in January. But if you think
> > "beta" is better and nobody objects, go ahead.
>
> Well even if we put different names on it, we all agreed on the process:
> publish an unstable version, then a stable one after some testing time.
> According to the Apache doc an rc doesn’t require a vote, but I guess we
> will vote. So a beta seems more appropriate to me. If nobody objects
> until tomorrow I’ll go ahead.
We obviously don't have the same definition of a release candidate as
[1].
Whether a vote is necessary or not depends on whether we publish the
release through the ASF mirrors or not. If someone puts a distribution
on his personal web page and doesn't announce that on the user list (dev
list is ok), it's not a formal release. Everything that gets announced
to a wider audience needs to go on the mirrors in order to reduce the
strain on ASF infrastructure and therefore has to be voted upon because
it's a formal release backed by the PMC.
So, we want feedback from the user community, and that's why a formal
release is necessary.
>
> >> Also, I have two pending changes regarding tables:
> >> - support for backgrounds on table-column and header/footer/body
> >> - conflict between fixed row height and forced break (if a forced break
> >> occurs before the row height is reached it gets ignored). I know of at
> >> least one user who is looking forward to seeing this bug fixed.
> >> I think it would be good to have those two features available in the
> >> next release. That shouldn’t take more than one week to finish them.
> >> Shouldn’t be a big deal to wait one more week? And that doesn’t prevent
> >> us from preparing everything but the artifacts building.
> >>
> >> WDYT?
> >
> > I think you are quite late to bring this on the table. I've started
>
> I’m going as fast as I can.
>
> > early enough to notify everyone that we'll be building a release around
> > this time. If you want these two points in the release, go ahead but
> > you'll have to take over most of the remaining release process. I've
>
> Fine. Building the artifacts is not the biggest part of the work anyway.
> Updating the website is the most important one.
>
> > reserved time to do this now so I'll finish going through our website
> > and then go back to hacking. Next week I won't have much time as I'm
> > absorbed with OpenExpo in Bern.
>
>
> Vincent
>
>
> --
> Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies
> http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com
> Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
Jeremias Maerki
Re: Release Date
Posted by Vincent Hennebert <vi...@anyware-tech.com>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 04.03.2008 11:10:30 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> First, let me insist that the next release should be called 0.95 beta,
>> according to the Apache documentation [1]. Release candidates are
>> targetted at developers and users following the development, and I think
>> we want to reach users outside the project (DocBook users being part of
>> them). We must be consistent with the Apache naming scheme IMO.
>
> Whatever. I'm not sure if [1] really reflects a strict policy. I
> remember discussions about the membership around this topic some time
> ago. Several FOPers stated they prefer "RC" in January. But if you think
> "beta" is better and nobody objects, go ahead.
Well even if we put different names on it, we all agreed on the process:
publish an unstable version, then a stable one after some testing time.
According to the Apache doc an rc doesn’t require a vote, but I guess we
will vote. So a beta seems more appropriate to me. If nobody objects
until tomorrow I’ll go ahead.
>> Also, I have two pending changes regarding tables:
>> - support for backgrounds on table-column and header/footer/body
>> - conflict between fixed row height and forced break (if a forced break
>> occurs before the row height is reached it gets ignored). I know of at
>> least one user who is looking forward to seeing this bug fixed.
>> I think it would be good to have those two features available in the
>> next release. That shouldn’t take more than one week to finish them.
>> Shouldn’t be a big deal to wait one more week? And that doesn’t prevent
>> us from preparing everything but the artifacts building.
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> I think you are quite late to bring this on the table. I've started
I’m going as fast as I can.
> early enough to notify everyone that we'll be building a release around
> this time. If you want these two points in the release, go ahead but
> you'll have to take over most of the remaining release process. I've
Fine. Building the artifacts is not the biggest part of the work anyway.
Updating the website is the most important one.
> reserved time to do this now so I'll finish going through our website
> and then go back to hacking. Next week I won't have much time as I'm
> absorbed with OpenExpo in Bern.
Vincent
--
Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
Re: Release Date
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
On 04.03.2008 11:10:30 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> First, let me insist that the next release should be called 0.95 beta,
> according to the Apache documentation [1]. Release candidates are
> targetted at developers and users following the development, and I think
> we want to reach users outside the project (DocBook users being part of
> them). We must be consistent with the Apache naming scheme IMO.
Whatever. I'm not sure if [1] really reflects a strict policy. I
remember discussions about the membership around this topic some time
ago. Several FOPers stated they prefer "RC" in January. But if you think
"beta" is better and nobody objects, go ahead.
> Also, I have two pending changes regarding tables:
> - support for backgrounds on table-column and header/footer/body
> - conflict between fixed row height and forced break (if a forced break
> occurs before the row height is reached it gets ignored). I know of at
> least one user who is looking forward to seeing this bug fixed.
> I think it would be good to have those two features available in the
> next release. That shouldn’t take more than one week to finish them.
> Shouldn’t be a big deal to wait one more week? And that doesn’t prevent
> us from preparing everything but the artifacts building.
>
> WDYT?
I think you are quite late to bring this on the table. I've started
early enough to notify everyone that we'll be building a release around
this time. If you want these two points in the release, go ahead but
you'll have to take over most of the remaining release process. I've
reserved time to do this now so I'll finish going through our website
and then go back to hacking. Next week I won't have much time as I'm
absorbed with OpenExpo in Bern.
> Vincent
>
> [1] http://apache.org/dev/release.html#release-typeso
>
>
> --
> Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies
> http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com
> Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
Jeremias Maerki