Clay Leeds wrote: > hehehe.. That's what I was looking for (I _thought_ there was a link > like that!). Only problem is, I scoured the FOP "Home" and > "Development" tabs and couldn't find it. If I couldn't find it after > searching (& searching & searching...), how's the average shmoe > supposed to... wait a minute. I found the link. It's on the main FOP > download page (not visible from the Dev tab). In addition, it doesn't > indicate that it is fop-1.0DR1. I'd like to highlight the "SNAPSHOT" > better to, among other things, properly identify the snapshots as being > fop-1_0DR1 (or "HEAD", or "currently active FOP development branch" or > whatever the darn thing is called). > > For example, > > CURRENT: > * Download a CVS snapshot from the cvs files here. These snapshots are > built approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their > creation time embedded in their names. Please note that CVS snapshots > are made only for the "redesign" branch. > > MODIFIED: > * [b]FOP 1.0DR1 Snapshot[/b] - Download a CVS snapshot of FOP-1_0DR1 > from the cvs files [a href=..]here[/a]. These snapshots are built > approximately every six hours, and have the GMT of their creation > time embedded in their names. Please note that CVS snapshots are > made only for the "redesign" branch.
+1 on the concept of bolding the text. -1 on the name. There is no such thing as FOP 1.0DR1. It is a naming convention only, and IMO, not a good one. > BTW, IIRC it's been discussed on the list (ad nauseam) that the > official "tag" name is HEAD, but frankly, I don't remember why so many > terms appear to be synonymous. Unless I'm mistaken, the site refers to > "HEAD" using the following other terms: "Redesign" (FOP=>Download), > "FOP 1.0DR1" (FOP=>Status), "FOP-1.0Dev" (don't recall where this was). > Does it make sense to standardize on this and re-tag it in CVS? Should > we also eradicate all other terms for it so visitors will know what to > refer to? Obviously in the above "modified" paragraph "redesign" should > be changed to whatever is decided. > > I'm not trying to be nit-picky here. I just don't want others to get > confused as they try to figure this stuff out. +1. This has crossed my mind many times, but so far I haven't made the effort. This is partly because the hope has *always* been that we are just around the corner from having only one development line again. Thank you for volunteering :-) I'll address the naming issue in my response to your subsequent post. Victor Mote
