Hi, Maruan Sahyoun
Am 02.06.2014 um 08:59 schrieb John Hewson <j...@jahewson.com>: >> On 1 Jun 2014, at 06:03, Andreas Lehmkuehler <andr...@lehmi.de> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Am 30.05.2014 23:13, schrieb John Hewson: >>> I think the risk of creating the impression that 2.0 is stable is too high. >>> The real problem >>> is that 2.0 has been too long in development, there were frustrated users >>> asking a year >>> ago about when it would be released. >> The biggest issue is, that we can't name a version stable without an >> official release. > > Seems like there could be some "release candidates" at some point soon... not > quite yet. > >> >>> Perhaps it’s time to push for a release of 2.0 and aim for a more frequent >>> release cycle >>> after that, to avoid repeating the situation where the stable and trunk >>> versions are >>> years apart? >> +1, it's time to go for release, not tomorrow or next week, but we should >> start to do some planning. >> >>> What is holding back 2.0? What features are we *really* holding out on? Can >>> we put >>> together a roadmap - our users often ask for one... >> I already had a starting discussion with Maruan two weeks ago at a f2f >> meeting. >> >> I'd like to add those changes which include api changes so what we haven't >> to wait until the next major release, at least those changes which are not >> that big, such as >> >> - solving the jempbox/xmpbox issue >> - update bouncy castle >> - split the pdfbox module in at least 2 modules (core and rendering) > > Splitting the rendering code into a module isn't really a feature... is there > a higher-level goal? If so, is it achievable for a 2.0 release in the near > future? There are requests for PDFBox on Android where most of awt is not available. > >> >> There are some changes/improvements/bugfixes I'd like to solve as well: >> >> - PDFBOX-922: unicode support >> - PDFBOX-62: almost done >> - improve the parser concerning broken XRef-tables >> - complete the recent font-improvements > > Yes, finally removing AWT fonts will be a huge improvement. > >> There some other more or less easy to solve candidates >> >> - enhance type safety >> - remove dependencies >> - .... >> >> There are some other things on our ideas list which should be postponed >> >> - enhanced parser (could maybe done without big refactorings, so that we >> don't have to wait until the next major release) >> - refactoring of COS-level object >> - .... >> >> There is one important thing we have to do before releasing 2.0, an upgrade >> guide including updated docs. >> >> We should contact press@ in preparation of the release to phrase a press >> release. >> >> >> IMHO, it could be realisitc to do a release in the summer, maybe in august. >> >>> -- John >> >> BR >> Andreas Lehmkühler >>> >>>> On 30 May 2014, at 14:01, Tilman Hausherr <thaush...@t-online.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> I suggest that we come up with a concept of designating "stable versions" >>>> (or "tested versions") for the trunk and put them on the homepage. A >>>> stable version is one with no or only minor regressions, and/or a version >>>> that committers have found to be "good". This would be for users of the >>>> 2.0 version who don't want to read every discussion, and also as a hint >>>> for unhappy 1.8 users. >>>> >>>> I suspect that other open source projects do also have rules to designate >>>> stable versions, but I didn't look at them. >>>> >>>> Proposed rules: >>>> - any committer can designate any version that is older than 24 hours as >>>> stable >>>> - any committer can veto any version as unstable >>>> - any version that has only positive votes is mentioned on >>>> https://pdfbox.apache.org/downloads.html#scm >>>> - there should be up to three versions there >>>> >>>> Tilman >>
