Sorry to be a pain about this, is there any timeline for tagging/releasing a version of commons-imaging?
Thanks again for your support. Regards, William On 2024/03/06 14:50:51 William Borg Barthet wrote: > Thanks for your replies. > > I am actually waiting on the WebP support. I found a PR and tested against > it and it seems to work for my purposes. I cannot really make use of a > SNAPSHOT, so any sort of tagged release, short of a 1.0 release would > suffice if it contained the WebP support. > > Thanks and regards > > William > > On 2024/02/28 15:43:06 Gary Gregory wrote: > > Yes: M is for milestone. > > > > Gary > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 10:40 AM Bruno Kinoshita <br...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > > > compatibility > > > > can be broken)? > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me too, at least users wouldn't expect any difference > seeing > > > a new alphaN+1 announced. But not sure if there won't be any differences > > > with a milestone release (M is for milestone, right?) > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 16:11, Gilles Sadowski <gi...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita > > > > <br...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > > > > > > What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 releases? > > > > > > > > > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API > > > right, > > > > > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need > one or > > > > > more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. But > if > > > we > > > > > can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will > try > > > > that > > > > > to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with M1/M2/M3, > the > > > > same > > > > > way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already. > > > > > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > > > compatibility > > > > can be broken)? > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
