Hi,

I vote for the option 1 too.

BR,
Eric

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Timo Boehme [mailto:[email protected]]
Envoyé : lundi 9 avril 2012 13:31
À : [email protected]
Cc : Andreas Lehmkuehler
Objet : Re: Next release(s)?


Hi,

I do also prefer option 1. For the conforming parser to be cleanly integrated I 
assume we will have to adjust a couple of internal classes thus we really 
should have one (or more) releases before this major release with the 'old' 
code base.

With the new intermediate 'conforming' parser (PDFBOX-1199) I think we should 
do a 1.7.x release. While creating a branch to separate next major release 
would be a cleaner solution I'm afraid that maintaining two branches is 
currently not doable with the available resources.


Best regards,
Timo


Am 08.04.2012 21:26, schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler:
> when preparing the next board report I was wondering what to write
> about our plans for the next release.
>
> I guess it's obvious that sooner or later we will go for a 2.x release.
> The major release may include the following
>
> - merge/replace Jempbox/Xmpbox
> - remove deprecated stuff
> - move to java6 as minimum requirement
> - switch to the (completed?) conforming parser as default
> - ....
>
> IMO we have different options how to do that:
>
> 1.
>
> Release a 1.7.x version based on the current trunk. Start with the
> major release using the current trunk.
>
> pros:
>
> - new feature release after 9 months
> - 1.7.x release without much effort
> - enough time for the major release
> - ...
>
> cons:
>
> - 2 XMP libs
> - unstable conforming parser
> - ...
>
> 2.
>
> Choose a couple of improvements/fixes from the trunk and apply them to
> the 1.6 branch and release a 1.6.x bugfix or a 1.7.0 feature release.
> Start with the major release using the current trunk.
>
> pros:
>
> - new feature/bugfix release only with chosen features/fixes
> - enough time for the major release
> - no unstable conforming parser, as it wouldn't be part of the release
> - ...
>
> cons:
>
> - 2 XMP libs (if we would do a 1.7.0 release including preflight)
> - a lot of discussion on what will be part of the release and what
> won't be
> - a lot of work to create the release compaired to alternative 1
> - ...
>
> 3.
>
> Drop all 1.6.x/1.7.0 plans and start with the major release using the
> current trunk.
>
> pros:
>
> - we wouldn't have to spend time on a 1.6.x/1.7.0 release
> - ...
>
> cons:
>
> - too much time without release
> - too less time to work on the new major release, because of con 1
> - ...
>
> I prefer option 1, what do you think?
>
> BR
> Andreas Lehmkühler


--

  Timo Boehme
  OntoChem GmbH
  H.-Damerow-Str. 4
  06120 Halle/Saale
  T: +49 345 4780474
  F: +49 345 4780471
  [email protected]

_____________________________________________________________________

  OntoChem GmbH
  Geschäftsführer: Dr. Lutz Weber
  Sitz: Halle / Saale
  Registergericht: Stendal
  Registernummer: HRB 215461
_____________________________________________________________________


Ce message et les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et réservés à l'usage 
exclusif de ses destinataires. Il peut également être protégé par le secret 
professionnel. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci d'en avertir 
immédiatement l'expéditeur et de le détruire. L'intégrité du message ne pouvant 
être assurée sur Internet, la responsabilité d'Atos ne pourra être recherchée 
quant au contenu de ce message. Bien que les meilleurs efforts soient faits 
pour maintenir cette transmission exempte de tout virus, l'expéditeur ne donne 
aucune garantie à cet égard et sa responsabilité ne saurait être recherchée 
pour tout dommage résultant d'un virus transmis.

This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for 
the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be 
secured on the Internet, the Atos liability cannot be triggered for the message 
content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free 
network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and 
will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted.

Reply via email to