xmlgraphics-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] XGC 1.5 and FOP 1.1 Releases
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2012 04:51:32 GMT
Jeremias, please go ahead and make these changes on the appropriate
branches, i.e.:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/commons/branches/commons-1_5
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_1

Then I'll generate new images along with Vincent's suggestions and start a
new vote.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch>wrote:

> I'm happy to do the changes myself if nobody objects:
> 1. Restore Glyphs.MAC_GLYPH_NAMES and deprecate it.
> 2. Restore ImageUtil.getInputStream() and deprecate it.
> 3. Cherry-pick the bugfix for the font auto-detection from trunk into
> the 1.1 branch.
>
> As for "necessary": it's not if you always upgrade FOP.jar alongside
> XGC.jar. But that may not always be the case. It's also difficult for
> people to know which JAR works with which other JAR. I keep hearing
> things like: which PDF Plug-in JAR do I have to use when I have FOP 1.0?
> And stuff like that. Also, XGC was intended to be usable and useful
> without FOP. At any rate, the above changes restore full
> backwards-compatibility of XGC 1.5 with XGC 1.0 to 1.4. And they will
> avoid trouble for people using font auto-detection.
>
> Jeremias Maerki
>
>
> On 08.10.2012 14:52:26 Glenn Adams wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch
> >wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think these changes constitute substantive changes. They do not
> > > add new functionality or otherwise create a significant risk for
> > > instability. They are merely bugfixes. The major motivation for fixing
> > > these IMO is in making everyone's life easier: Users will download FOP
> > > 1.1 and run into font auto-detection problems and others will have to
> > > help them.
> > >
> >
> > It's a matter of degree. It is substantive in the sense that it is a code
> > change [1]. It is also true that it is a very trivial change, and one
> that
> > I'm completely fine with making at this stage.
> >
> > Is this change sufficient to address your concerns about the usability of
> > 1.1? Do you also believe that a reversion to a change on
> Glyphs.MAC_GLYPH_NAMES
> > is necessary? If so, could you provide a minimal patch that makes what
> you
> > believe is needed?
> >
> > If others do not object, then I could apply [1] and this additional patch
> > and upload a new set of images.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fonts/truetype/TTFFile.java?r1=1356456&r2=1356455&pathrev=1356456
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message