Jeremias, please go ahead and make these changes on the appropriate branches, i.e.:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/commons/branches/commons-1_5 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_1 Then I'll generate new images along with Vincent's suggestions and start a new vote. On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm happy to do the changes myself if nobody objects: > 1. Restore Glyphs.MAC_GLYPH_NAMES and deprecate it. > 2. Restore ImageUtil.getInputStream() and deprecate it. > 3. Cherry-pick the bugfix for the font auto-detection from trunk into > the 1.1 branch. > > As for "necessary": it's not if you always upgrade FOP.jar alongside > XGC.jar. But that may not always be the case. It's also difficult for > people to know which JAR works with which other JAR. I keep hearing > things like: which PDF Plug-in JAR do I have to use when I have FOP 1.0? > And stuff like that. Also, XGC was intended to be usable and useful > without FOP. At any rate, the above changes restore full > backwards-compatibility of XGC 1.5 with XGC 1.0 to 1.4. And they will > avoid trouble for people using font auto-detection. > > Jeremias Maerki > > > On 08.10.2012 14:52:26 Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > I don't think these changes constitute substantive changes. They do not > > > add new functionality or otherwise create a significant risk for > > > instability. They are merely bugfixes. The major motivation for fixing > > > these IMO is in making everyone's life easier: Users will download FOP > > > 1.1 and run into font auto-detection problems and others will have to > > > help them. > > > > > > > It's a matter of degree. It is substantive in the sense that it is a code > > change [1]. It is also true that it is a very trivial change, and one > that > > I'm completely fine with making at this stage. > > > > Is this change sufficient to address your concerns about the usability of > > 1.1? Do you also believe that a reversion to a change on > Glyphs.MAC_GLYPH_NAMES > > is necessary? If so, could you provide a minimal patch that makes what > you > > believe is needed? > > > > If others do not object, then I could apply [1] and this additional patch > > and upload a new set of images. > > > > [1] > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fonts/truetype/TTFFile.java?r1=1356456&r2=1356455&pathrev=1356456 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
