Here is one other point to consider: if you expect the redesign when complete to perform at at least the same level, i.e. with the same coverage of the specification and as many or fewer defects, when it comes "online" and replaces the current maintenance release, then I imho the project should continue on as it currently is. However, if you expect there to be a significant number of bugs to be discovered and performance to be initially lower, then the project should move to perhaps fop2 so that users could more easily know that there could be problems when they upgrade to a new version of fop. Does this make any sense?
Matthew L. Avizinis <mailto:mla@;gleim.com> Gleim Publications, Inc. 4201 NW 95th Blvd. Gainesville, FL 32606 (352)-375-0772 www.gleim.com <http://www.gleim.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Victor Mote [mailto:vic@;outfitr.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 11:27 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: handling patches (how about "fop 2") > > > Oleg Tkachenko wrote: > > > and contributors efforts. Maintenance branch, as you correctly noted, is > > in production at many sites therefore making it a project on its own > > will lead to a strengthening of its meaning and this way we'll encourage > > many existing and future contributors to work on it, instead of helping > > us to get HEAD up. > > This is a fair point, but I think it weighs only in the decision about > whether we have a rewrite or not. In other words, it might weigh into the > economics of whether it is worth it for us to merge the sections of code > that can be merged. We might be willing to spend more time and effort > getting the two branches pulled back together than we would be if > the above > were not true. If we really do have a rewrite, then I think it > will clarify > everything to split into two projects, and I don't begrudge folks from > working on the old one instead of the new one any more than I > would begrudge > the RenderX guys working on their product instead of FOP, or the > Batik guys > working on Batik instead of FOP. The problem that Oleg mentions is already > the status quo. > > Victor Mote > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
