You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pdfbox.apache.org by Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de> on 2015/07/06 11:55:46 UTC
PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Hi,
I'd like to do a 2.0.0 release rather sooner than later and I guess I'm not the
only one ;-)
We are down to 24 issues marked with "Fix Version 2.0.0".
@Assignees: please have a look at "your" issues and verify if we really should
wait for them to be resolved first or if those could be moved to a later release
(2.1.0 or 3.0.0)
To start with a release candidate would be another option, but I'd prefer to
release 2.0.0.
WDYT?
BR
Andreas Lehmkühler
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
Hi Andreas,
I'd also go for a RC to be able to settle down on some additional changes/feedback before releasing.
BR
Maruan
> Am 06.07.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I'd like to do a 2.0.0 release rather sooner than later and I guess I'm not the
> only one ;-)
>
> We are down to 24 issues marked with "Fix Version 2.0.0".
>
> @Assignees: please have a look at "your" issues and verify if we really should
> wait for them to be resolved first or if those could be moved to a later release
> (2.1.0 or 3.0.0)
>
> To start with a release candidate would be another option, but I'd prefer to
> release 2.0.0.
>
> WDYT?
>
> BR
> Andreas Lehmkühler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>.
> Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> hat am 6. Juli 2015 um 19:08
> geschrieben:
>
>
> Yes it would be great that the 2.0 version be released. Before the
> opening of the new Berlin airport.
>
> IMO only the following issues are important for 2.0:
> - PDFBOX-2301 - RandomAccessBuffer consumes too much memory - isn't that
> one done?
There is only one todo left. I already have an idea but I doesn't work in any
cases yet.
> - PDFBOX-2370 - Move caching outside of PDResources - I assume John has
> a concept in his head, but hasn't implemented it
> - PDFBOX-2423 - Page tree handling needs rewriting - only the page tree
> issues are important (if any remain), the transparency problems can be
> done later.
> - PDFBOX-2400 - Add insertPage() method - this is related to PDFBOX-2423
> - PDFBOX-2705 - Add IKVM support to Maven build - when this was created,
> I thought this would be done quickly, but then nothing happened :-(
I'll have a look.
> - PDFBOX-2340 - documentation - I suggest a wiki for the migration issues.
>
> A release candidate is a good idea, hopefully the people who use 2.0
> already without updating after every new commit can test their own
> applications.
>
> Tilman
>
> Am 06.07.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I'd like to do a 2.0.0 release rather sooner than later and I guess I'm not
> > the
> > only one ;-)
> >
> > We are down to 24 issues marked with "Fix Version 2.0.0".
> >
> > @Assignees: please have a look at "your" issues and verify if we really
> > should
> > wait for them to be resolved first or if those could be moved to a later
> > release
> > (2.1.0 or 3.0.0)
> >
> > To start with a release candidate would be another option, but I'd prefer to
> > release 2.0.0.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > BR
> > Andreas Lehmkühler
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
BR
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> On 9 Jul 2015, at 06:10, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org> wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps getting a “big” user, such as Tika onboard will give us proof that 2.0 is ready for production? Some APIs are still in flux, e.g. font mapping has undergone recent changes to handle CJK better.
>
> Consider us onboard. Our dev version of Tika with 2.0.0-trunk is here: https://github.com/tballison/tika/tree/TIKA-1285.
>
> Please let us know if we should pace our issues = apologies for the blast you've received and will receive. :)
>
Fantastic! Yes, please do keep opening issues, then we can see what needs fixing pre-2.0.
— John
> Thank you, all, for all of your great work!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
RE: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by "Allison, Timothy B." <ta...@mitre.org>.
>> Perhaps getting a “big” user, such as Tika onboard will give us proof that 2.0 is ready for production? Some APIs are still in flux, e.g. font mapping has undergone recent changes to handle CJK better.
Consider us onboard. Our dev version of Tika with 2.0.0-trunk is here: https://github.com/tballison/tika/tree/TIKA-1285.
Please let us know if we should pace our issues = apologies for the blast you've received and will receive. :)
Thank you, all, for all of your great work!
Cheers,
Tim
Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> On 9 Jul 2015, at 03:05, John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 6 Jul 2015, at 10:08, Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>> Yes it would be great that the 2.0 version be released. Before the opening of the new Berlin airport.
>>
>> IMO only the following issues are important for 2.0:
>> - PDFBOX-2301 - RandomAccessBuffer consumes too much memory - isn't that one done?
>> - PDFBOX-2370 - Move caching outside of PDResources - I assume John has a concept in his head, but hasn't implemented it
>
> Indeed, I’ve implemented it today. Should speed up some files quite a bit.
>
>> - PDFBOX-2423 - Page tree handling needs rewriting - only the page tree issues are important (if any remain), the transparency problems can be done later.
>
> Page tree code is stable, so we can move the remaining transparency issues to 2.1.
Actually the patch I have for these transparency issues requires breaking changes, so I’ll look into that soon.
— John
>
>> - PDFBOX-2400 - Add insertPage() method - this is related to PDFBOX-2423
>> - PDFBOX-2705 - Add IKVM support to Maven build - when this was created, I thought this would be done quickly, but then nothing happened :-(
>> - PDFBOX-2340 - documentation - I suggest a wiki for the migration issues.
>>
>> A release candidate is a good idea, hopefully the people who use 2.0 already without updating after every new commit can test their own applications.
>
> We definitely want an RC, probably multiple. We need to set aside a time window to encourage people to move to 2.0rc and take their feedback into account w.r.t any APIs which require breaking changes to fix. Perhaps getting a “big” user, such as Tika onboard will give us proof that 2.0 is ready for production? Some APIs are still in flux, e.g. font mapping has undergone recent changes to handle CJK better.
>
> — John
>
>>
>> Tilman
>>
>> Am 06.07.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to do a 2.0.0 release rather sooner than later and I guess I'm not the
>>> only one ;-)
>>>
>>> We are down to 24 issues marked with "Fix Version 2.0.0".
>>>
>>> @Assignees: please have a look at "your" issues and verify if we really should
>>> wait for them to be resolved first or if those could be moved to a later release
>>> (2.1.0 or 3.0.0)
>>>
>>> To start with a release candidate would be another option, but I'd prefer to
>>> release 2.0.0.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Andreas Lehmkühler
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
RE: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by "Allison, Timothy B." <ta...@mitre.org>.
>> Perhaps getting a “big” user, such as Tika onboard will give us proof that 2.0 is ready for production? Some APIs are still in flux, e.g. font mapping has undergone recent changes to handle CJK better.
Consider us onboard. Our dev version of Tika with 2.0.0-trunk is here: https://github.com/tballison/tika/tree/TIKA-1285.
Please let us know if we should pace our issues = apologies for the blast you've received and will receive. :)
Thank you, all, for all of your great work!
Cheers,
Tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> On 6 Jul 2015, at 10:08, Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> Yes it would be great that the 2.0 version be released. Before the opening of the new Berlin airport.
>
> IMO only the following issues are important for 2.0:
> - PDFBOX-2301 - RandomAccessBuffer consumes too much memory - isn't that one done?
> - PDFBOX-2370 - Move caching outside of PDResources - I assume John has a concept in his head, but hasn't implemented it
Indeed, I’ve implemented it today. Should speed up some files quite a bit.
> - PDFBOX-2423 - Page tree handling needs rewriting - only the page tree issues are important (if any remain), the transparency problems can be done later.
Page tree code is stable, so we can move the remaining transparency issues to 2.1.
> - PDFBOX-2400 - Add insertPage() method - this is related to PDFBOX-2423
> - PDFBOX-2705 - Add IKVM support to Maven build - when this was created, I thought this would be done quickly, but then nothing happened :-(
> - PDFBOX-2340 - documentation - I suggest a wiki for the migration issues.
>
> A release candidate is a good idea, hopefully the people who use 2.0 already without updating after every new commit can test their own applications.
We definitely want an RC, probably multiple. We need to set aside a time window to encourage people to move to 2.0rc and take their feedback into account w.r.t any APIs which require breaking changes to fix. Perhaps getting a “big” user, such as Tika onboard will give us proof that 2.0 is ready for production? Some APIs are still in flux, e.g. font mapping has undergone recent changes to handle CJK better.
— John
>
> Tilman
>
> Am 06.07.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I'd like to do a 2.0.0 release rather sooner than later and I guess I'm not the
>> only one ;-)
>>
>> We are down to 24 issues marked with "Fix Version 2.0.0".
>>
>> @Assignees: please have a look at "your" issues and verify if we really should
>> wait for them to be resolved first or if those could be moved to a later release
>> (2.1.0 or 3.0.0)
>>
>> To start with a release candidate would be another option, but I'd prefer to
>> release 2.0.0.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> BR
>> Andreas Lehmkühler
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
RE: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by "Allison, Timothy B." <ta...@mitre.org>.
Y, this sounds great. Would give us (over on Tika) reason to complete the migration of our wrapper to 2.0.0...which would enable batch comparisons.
Cheers,
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Tilman Hausherr [mailto:THausherr@t-online.de]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 1:08 PM
To: dev@pdfbox.apache.org
Subject: Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Yes it would be great that the 2.0 version be released. Before the
opening of the new Berlin airport.
IMO only the following issues are important for 2.0:
- PDFBOX-2301 - RandomAccessBuffer consumes too much memory - isn't that
one done?
- PDFBOX-2370 - Move caching outside of PDResources - I assume John has
a concept in his head, but hasn't implemented it
- PDFBOX-2423 - Page tree handling needs rewriting - only the page tree
issues are important (if any remain), the transparency problems can be
done later.
- PDFBOX-2400 - Add insertPage() method - this is related to PDFBOX-2423
- PDFBOX-2705 - Add IKVM support to Maven build - when this was created,
I thought this would be done quickly, but then nothing happened :-(
- PDFBOX-2340 - documentation - I suggest a wiki for the migration issues.
A release candidate is a good idea, hopefully the people who use 2.0
already without updating after every new commit can test their own
applications.
Tilman
Am 06.07.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
> Hi,
>
>
> I'd like to do a 2.0.0 release rather sooner than later and I guess I'm not the
> only one ;-)
>
> We are down to 24 issues marked with "Fix Version 2.0.0".
>
> @Assignees: please have a look at "your" issues and verify if we really should
> wait for them to be resolved first or if those could be moved to a later release
> (2.1.0 or 3.0.0)
>
> To start with a release candidate would be another option, but I'd prefer to
> release 2.0.0.
>
> WDYT?
>
> BR
> Andreas Lehmkühler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: FW: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>.
Am 31.08.2015 um 22:50 schrieb Ruhong Cai:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ruhong Cai
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 1:31 PM
> To: dev@pdfbox.apache.org
> Subject: RE: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
>
> Hi,
>
> The following code could prove that there is a bug in getting the number of the pages
>
> PDDocument pdf1 = PDDocument.load("C:\\ms12_TIM.pdf");
>
> int count = pdf1.getNumberOfPages();
>
>
> count return “0” , the file has a page.
>
Hi,
Could you please upload the file somewhere?
And is this really related to the 2.0 version, or did you just hop on an
existing thread (in the wrong mailing list)?
Tilman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
FW: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Ruhong Cai <Ru...@smartbear.com>.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ruhong Cai
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 1:31 PM
To: dev@pdfbox.apache.org
Subject: RE: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Hi,
The following code could prove that there is a bug in getting the number of the pages
PDDocument pdf1 = PDDocument.load("C:\\ms12_TIM.pdf");
int count = pdf1.getNumberOfPages();
count return “0” , the file has a page.
Thanks!
Ruhong
Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>.
Am 06.07.2015 um 20:31 schrieb Ruhong Cai:
> Hi,
>
> The following code could prove that there is a bug in getting the number of the pages
>
> PDDocument pdf1 = PDDocument.load("C:\\ms12_TIM.pdf");
>
> int count = pdf1.getNumberOfPages();
>
>
> count return “0” , the file has a page.
Hi,
Could you please upload the PDF somewhere?
Tilman
PS: don't hijack threads. Open a new one. And this rather belongs to the
user list, not to the dev list. (And did it apply to the 2.0 version?)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Ruhong
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
Hi,
> Am 06.07.2015 um 20:31 schrieb Ruhong Cai <Ru...@smartbear.com>:
>
> Hi,
>
> The following code could prove that there is a bug in getting the number of the pages
>
> PDDocument pdf1 = PDDocument.load("C:\\ms12_TIM.pdf");
could you upload the file to a public location to take a look?
BR
Maruan
>
> int count = pdf1.getNumberOfPages();
>
>
> count return “0” , the file has a page.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Ruhong
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
RE: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Ruhong Cai <Ru...@smartbear.com>.
Hi,
The following code could prove that there is a bug in getting the number of the pages
PDDocument pdf1 = PDDocument.load("C:\\ms12_TIM.pdf");
int count = pdf1.getNumberOfPages();
count return “0” , the file has a page.
Thanks!
Ruhong
Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
Hi,
> Am 06.07.2015 um 19:08 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>
> Yes it would be great that the 2.0 version be released. Before the opening of the new Berlin airport.
>
> IMO only the following issues are important for 2.0:
> - PDFBOX-2301 - RandomAccessBuffer consumes too much memory - isn't that one done?
> - PDFBOX-2370 - Move caching outside of PDResources - I assume John has a concept in his head, but hasn't implemented it
> - PDFBOX-2423 - Page tree handling needs rewriting - only the page tree issues are important (if any remain), the transparency problems can be done later.
> - PDFBOX-2400 - Add insertPage() method - this is related to PDFBOX-2423
could move to 2.1 as this in non API breaking
> - PDFBOX-2705 - Add IKVM support to Maven build - when this was created, I thought this would be done quickly, but then nothing happened :-(
> - PDFBOX-2340 - documentation - I suggest a wiki for the migration issues.
I'd prefer the regular documentation (CMS currently) as to avoid to have yet another location for documentation.
BR
Maruan
>
> A release candidate is a good idea, hopefully the people who use 2.0 already without updating after every new commit can test their own applications.
>
> Tilman
>
> Am 06.07.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I'd like to do a 2.0.0 release rather sooner than later and I guess I'm not the
>> only one ;-)
>>
>> We are down to 24 issues marked with "Fix Version 2.0.0".
>>
>> @Assignees: please have a look at "your" issues and verify if we really should
>> wait for them to be resolved first or if those could be moved to a later release
>> (2.1.0 or 3.0.0)
>>
>> To start with a release candidate would be another option, but I'd prefer to
>> release 2.0.0.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> BR
>> Andreas Lehmkühler
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>.
Yes it would be great that the 2.0 version be released. Before the
opening of the new Berlin airport.
IMO only the following issues are important for 2.0:
- PDFBOX-2301 - RandomAccessBuffer consumes too much memory - isn't that
one done?
- PDFBOX-2370 - Move caching outside of PDResources - I assume John has
a concept in his head, but hasn't implemented it
- PDFBOX-2423 - Page tree handling needs rewriting - only the page tree
issues are important (if any remain), the transparency problems can be
done later.
- PDFBOX-2400 - Add insertPage() method - this is related to PDFBOX-2423
- PDFBOX-2705 - Add IKVM support to Maven build - when this was created,
I thought this would be done quickly, but then nothing happened :-(
- PDFBOX-2340 - documentation - I suggest a wiki for the migration issues.
A release candidate is a good idea, hopefully the people who use 2.0
already without updating after every new commit can test their own
applications.
Tilman
Am 06.07.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
> Hi,
>
>
> I'd like to do a 2.0.0 release rather sooner than later and I guess I'm not the
> only one ;-)
>
> We are down to 24 issues marked with "Fix Version 2.0.0".
>
> @Assignees: please have a look at "your" issues and verify if we really should
> wait for them to be resolved first or if those could be moved to a later release
> (2.1.0 or 3.0.0)
>
> To start with a release candidate would be another option, but I'd prefer to
> release 2.0.0.
>
> WDYT?
>
> BR
> Andreas Lehmkühler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: 2.0.0. RC was Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
Hi,
> Am 07.07.2015 um 09:34 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de> hat am 6. Juli 2015 um 11:55
>> geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I'd like to do a 2.0.0 release rather sooner than later and I guess I'm not
>> the
>> only one ;-)
>>
>> We are down to 24 issues marked with "Fix Version 2.0.0".
>>
>> @Assignees: please have a look at "your" issues and verify if we really should
>> wait for them to be resolved first or if those could be moved to a later
>> release
>> (2.1.0 or 3.0.0)
>>
>> To start with a release candidate would be another option, but I'd prefer to
>> release 2.0.0.
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> As there seems to be a majority supporting a release candidate I'd like to find
> out what exactly a possible RC would be so that we are all on the same page:
>
> - is it feature complete? IMHO, yes
Yes
> - is the api stable? IMHO, yes
A RC should give us the ability to do minor tweaks - if we can't then there is no need for a RC
> - do we create a branch or just release from a tag? IMHO, we should branch,
> especially if the api is meant to be stable
> - we won't push the RC to maven central but would provide a possibility to
> download the RC. This is a common approach in other apache projects
>
>
> How long do we wait until releasing the final 2.0? We might define some
> rule/goal for that.
dependent on issues coming up, which are due to the RC and not because of new issues, a month or two should be fine
>
> What exactly will be the difference between the RC and the final release? (there
> are not that much open tickets left, so that I presume it won't be that big)
changes to the API because of feedback. If we declare the API to be final we don't need a RC IMHO but could follow up with a bug fix release shortly.
>
> I'm in favour of a final release without an RC. Our release process is quite
> lean so that it wouldn't hurt to much to release a 2.0.x bugfix release.
>
> BR
> Andreas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
2.0.0. RC was Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de>.
Hi,
> Andreas Lehmkühler <an...@lehmi.de> hat am 6. Juli 2015 um 11:55
> geschrieben:
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I'd like to do a 2.0.0 release rather sooner than later and I guess I'm not
> the
> only one ;-)
>
> We are down to 24 issues marked with "Fix Version 2.0.0".
>
> @Assignees: please have a look at "your" issues and verify if we really should
> wait for them to be resolved first or if those could be moved to a later
> release
> (2.1.0 or 3.0.0)
>
> To start with a release candidate would be another option, but I'd prefer to
> release 2.0.0.
>
> WDYT?
As there seems to be a majority supporting a release candidate I'd like to find
out what exactly a possible RC would be so that we are all on the same page:
- is it feature complete? IMHO, yes
- is the api stable? IMHO, yes
- do we create a branch or just release from a tag? IMHO, we should branch,
especially if the api is meant to be stable
- we won't push the RC to maven central but would provide a possibility to
download the RC. This is a common approach in other apache projects
How long do we wait until releasing the final 2.0? We might define some
rule/goal for that.
What exactly will be the difference between the RC and the final release? (there
are not that much open tickets left, so that I presume it won't be that big)
I'm in favour of a final release without an RC. Our release process is quite
lean so that it wouldn't hurt to much to release a 2.0.x bugfix release.
BR
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: PDFBox 2.0.0 release
Posted by Timo Boehme <ti...@ontochem.com>.
Hi,
having a 2.0.0 release is what a number of users are waiting for
(including me). However this also means that the current flexibility of
changing APIs will be stopped and one has to agree to a set of APIs
which will change during the 2.0.x cycle only minimal (at least in a
compatible way). Pushing an agreement on the APIs currently in flux is
fine and will trigger a number of developers adjusting their
applications to the new 2.0 API.
I would therefor vote for having a small number of release candidates
since I can imaging that there will be some developers having problems
adjusting their applications with the now more 'hidden' classes/methods
and it may be necessary to adjust some APIs in this process.
In order to keep the pressure on the small number of active PDFBOX
developer minimal it would also be helpful to declare at least parts of
PDFBOX APIs to be 2.0 stable, allowing other developers upgrading their
applications against these API subset. This way we would have an
iterative process leasing to the 2.0 release.
Just my 2¢
Best,
Timo
Am 06.07.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Andreas Lehmkühler:
> Hi,
>
>
> I'd like to do a 2.0.0 release rather sooner than later and I guess I'm not the
> only one ;-)
>
> We are down to 24 issues marked with "Fix Version 2.0.0".
>
> @Assignees: please have a look at "your" issues and verify if we really should
> wait for them to be resolved first or if those could be moved to a later release
> (2.1.0 or 3.0.0)
>
> To start with a release candidate would be another option, but I'd prefer to
> release 2.0.0.
>
> WDYT?
>
> BR
> Andreas Lehmkühler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
--
Timo Boehme
OntoChem IT Solutions GmbH
Blücherstraße 24
06120 Halle (Saale)
Germany
phone: +49 345 478 047 4 | fax: +49 345 478 047 1
email: ulf.laube@ontochem.com | web: www.ontochem.com
HRB 21962 Amtsgericht Stendal | USt-IdNr.: DE815563824
managing director : Lutz Weber
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org