> Am 26.05.2016 um 19:50 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <[email protected]>: > > Am 26.05.2016 um 19:45 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun: >>> Am 26.05.2016 um 19:29 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:51 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:45 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> from time to time I come across a method signature with … throws >>>>>> IOException where the code will not throw an exception and as such the >>>>>> declaration is nt neccessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we remove such declarations in minor releases (e.g. 2.1) or does >>>>>> that need a major release (e.g. 3.0). >>>>> I'm afraid that's a change which requires a major release. Which leads to >>>>> the question if we might change the trunk from 2.1 to 3.0 and create an >>>>> additional 2.1 branch: >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>> I'm not in favor of that as we already have to apply patches to 1.8.x, >>>> 2.0.x and 2.1. If there is yet another active branch that adds to that. >>>> I'll open an issue for 3.0 to not forget about that. >>> That's correct, but once we introduce an major change, we have to do that >>> split, but only if we want to introduce a possible 2.1 version. >> I'd see us do a 2.1 as we want to keep PDFBox stable for a while and not do >> another major release 'shortly' >> >>> The 1.8. branch will become more and more obsolete. IMHO we won't cut more >>> than 1 or 2 more releases. >> Maybe do a 2.1 in the not to far future (August?) and retire 1.8 after that. >> We could agree on the topics to work on for 2.1. For me that's > > My main wish would be a 2.0.2 release due to the signature bug.
we could do that right away - if the release manager finds the time :-) > > If we do a 2.1 release, then retire the 2.0 and keep the 1.8.* for a while, I > think that one has a big user base. yes, that's better. > >> >> Appearance generation (which can also extend into 2.2 with an intial support >> in 2.1 - some appearances are harder to generate than others e.g. stamps) > > You mean the clouds? I don't see this as a big priority. I've never seen > these except in test documents. yes, that's another one. > > Tilman > >> Easier forms creation >> (Visible) Signature rewrite (which ties into the topics above) >> Incremental safe >> >> I was planning for Complex Script support but that could also wait until >> after 2.1 which would then come together with a better text formatter. >> >> Shall we update the ideas page accordingly? >> >> BR >> Maruan >> >> >>> BR >>> Andreas >>> >>>> BR >>>> Maruan >>>> >>>> >>>>> BR >>>>> Andreas >>>>> >>>>>> BR >>>>>> >>>>>> Maruan >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
