xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremias Maerki <...@jeremias-maerki.ch>
Subject Re: Release Date
Date Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:05:26 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message