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 Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> on 2012/09/05 15:13:46 UTC
1.1 Release (was Vacation)
On 05/09/2012 13:55, mehdi houshmand wrote:
Hi All,
Apart from my initial e-mail there's nothing private in this e-mail
thread, so moving the discussion to fop-dev.
> Bugzilla#53790 applies to FOP1.1. It's a blocking point if you're
> working with TIFF, do you want me to create an analogous commit for
> 1.1? I haven't had the time to apply it, now seems like a good
> opportunity to ask whether I should.
I don't believe that is a blocker to release. There are plenty of other
compression types that do work.
Thanks,
Chris
RE: 1.1 Release (was Vacation)
Posted by Jonathan Levinson <Jo...@intersystems.com>.
I misunderstood the implications. Thanks for the clarification.
Kind Regards,
Jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:bowditch_chris@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:49 AM
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 1.1 Release (was Vacation)
>
> On 05/09/2012 14:29, Jonathan Levinson wrote:
> > We have customers who make heavy use of FOP TIFF. There are situations
> where TIFF generation is a requirement.
>
> Sure, and I didn't suggest otherwise. TIFF generation works in most scenarios.
> Only JPEG compression is broken. If your clients are using that then surely you
> would have reported the bug before now. I stand by my opinion that this is not a
> blocker for the 1.1 release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:bowditch_chris@hotmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:14 AM
> >> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> >> Cc: private@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> >> Subject: 1.1 Release (was Vacation)
> >>
> >> On 05/09/2012 13:55, mehdi houshmand wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Apart from my initial e-mail there's nothing private in this e-mail
> >> thread, so moving the discussion to fop-dev.
> >>
> >>> Bugzilla#53790 applies to FOP1.1. It's a blocking point if you're
> >>> working with TIFF, do you want me to create an analogous commit for
> >>> 1.1? I haven't had the time to apply it, now seems like a good
> >>> opportunity to ask whether I should.
> >> I don't believe that is a blocker to release. There are plenty of
> >> other compression types that do work.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >
> >
Re: 1.1 Release (was Vacation)
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 05/09/2012 14:29, Jonathan Levinson wrote:
> We have customers who make heavy use of FOP TIFF. There are situations where TIFF generation is a requirement.
Sure, and I didn't suggest otherwise. TIFF generation works in most
scenarios. Only JPEG compression is broken. If your clients are using
that then surely you would have reported the bug before now. I stand by
my opinion that this is not a blocker for the 1.1 release.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Kind Regards,
> Jonathan
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:bowditch_chris@hotmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:14 AM
>> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>> Cc: private@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>> Subject: 1.1 Release (was Vacation)
>>
>> On 05/09/2012 13:55, mehdi houshmand wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Apart from my initial e-mail there's nothing private in this e-mail thread, so
>> moving the discussion to fop-dev.
>>
>>> Bugzilla#53790 applies to FOP1.1. It's a blocking point if you're
>>> working with TIFF, do you want me to create an analogous commit for
>>> 1.1? I haven't had the time to apply it, now seems like a good
>>> opportunity to ask whether I should.
>> I don't believe that is a blocker to release. There are plenty of other
>> compression types that do work.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>
Re: 1.1 Release (was Vacation)
Posted by mehdi houshmand <me...@gmail.com>.
Sorry guys, I may have communicated myself poorly here. I didn't mean that
this bug should block the 1.1 release, I didn't even mean to insinuate as
such. I only meant that this behaviour is non-optimal and it would be quite
a lot of work to back-date the patch to work on 1.1 and it's better to do
that sooner rather than later.
This bug is long-standing and NOT new or recently introduced. Apologies for
any misunderstandings.
Mehdi
On 5 September 2012 14:29, Jonathan Levinson <
Jonathan.Levinson@intersystems.com> wrote:
> We have customers who make heavy use of FOP TIFF. There are situations
> where TIFF generation is a requirement.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Jonathan
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:bowditch_chris@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:14 AM
> > To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> > Cc: private@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> > Subject: 1.1 Release (was Vacation)
> >
> > On 05/09/2012 13:55, mehdi houshmand wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Apart from my initial e-mail there's nothing private in this e-mail
> thread, so
> > moving the discussion to fop-dev.
> >
> > > Bugzilla#53790 applies to FOP1.1. It's a blocking point if you're
> > > working with TIFF, do you want me to create an analogous commit for
> > > 1.1? I haven't had the time to apply it, now seems like a good
> > > opportunity to ask whether I should.
> >
> > I don't believe that is a blocker to release. There are plenty of other
> > compression types that do work.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
>
RE: 1.1 Release (was Vacation)
Posted by Jonathan Levinson <Jo...@intersystems.com>.
We have customers who make heavy use of FOP TIFF. There are situations where TIFF generation is a requirement.
Kind Regards,
Jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:bowditch_chris@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:14 AM
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> Cc: private@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> Subject: 1.1 Release (was Vacation)
>
> On 05/09/2012 13:55, mehdi houshmand wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Apart from my initial e-mail there's nothing private in this e-mail thread, so
> moving the discussion to fop-dev.
>
> > Bugzilla#53790 applies to FOP1.1. It's a blocking point if you're
> > working with TIFF, do you want me to create an analogous commit for
> > 1.1? I haven't had the time to apply it, now seems like a good
> > opportunity to ask whether I should.
>
> I don't believe that is a blocker to release. There are plenty of other
> compression types that do work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>