I support bumping minimum JDK to 1.6. I'm not planning on verifying builds on 1.5.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Vincent Hennebert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > > On 23/07/14 10:06, Chris Bowditch wrote: > >> Hi Vincent, >> >> On 17/07/2014 12:59, Vincent Hennebert wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> (Moving to general@ as not only FOP is involved.) >>> >>> I should be able to spare some cycles over the next few weeks to do >>> a release of XGC, Batik and FOP. The new versions would be: >>> • XGC 1.6 >>> • Batik 1.8 >>> • FOP 2.0 >>> >>> The minimum supported JRE for all projects would be 1.5. >>> >> >> I thought in previous discussions the PMC approved the upgrade to Java 6? >> I'm >> not sure if anyone has committed any 1.6 specific changes between now and >> then, but if they have then a final release based on 1.5 won't be >> possible. >> > > Yes, it’s agreed that 1.6 features can now be introduced to trunk. But > IIC that hasn’t happened yet. So if I am able to build the release with > a 1.5 JDK, I might as well do so. Otherwise we’ll just increase the > minimum requirement in the release announcement. > > > > Here’s my view: Branches would be created from the trunks as of now >>> + whatever has been committed at the time they are created. That means >>> that no existing issue would be required to be solved first (and that >>> all of the open FOP issues currently rated as blocker and critical can >>> be downgraded to major). >>> >>> If anybody thinks that some issues/features ought to be fixed/integrated >>> in one of the projects before the releases, please mention it now so >>> that we can discuss it. At any rate I won’t start anything before Wed >>> 30th July. >>> >> >> Which version of pdfbox will users of font merging feature or pdf-plugin >> be >> expected to use? My understanding is that its a 2.0 snapshot currently, >> so we >> might need to wait until PDFbox release that version, before doing the >> release. >> > > AFAIU FOP only depends on FontBox 1.8.5, so it can be released now. If > users want to use the PDF Images plug-in, then that’s another story. > They would have to use a snapshot version of FontBox instead, as well as > the plug-in for that matter. > > But since that plug-in has never been released, and is not documented on > the website, I doubt that there are many people outside of the core > developer group who are using it. > > FOP doesn’t depend on the plug-in to deliver its core functionality > anyway, so it can be released independently. > > We could (should) talk about creating a release and a website for the > plug-in. If the code before the FontMerging change still is compatible > with FOP’s current trunk, then it would have only released dependencies > and we could deliver a version that would remain compatible with FOP > 2.0. But I’m not sure I’ll have the time to do all the checks and the > work. > > > Vincent > > > > Any comment, suggestion? >>> Thanks, >>> Vincent >>> >>> >> Thanks, >> >> Chris >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
