Re: [orbit-dev] Batik 1.7 in Orbit

[Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dave,

I will take over Christian's Batik orbit components since I am familiar with them. This includes the org.apache.batik and org.w3c bundles.

I will talk to the new OCL committers in modeling to take over net.sourceforge.lpg.lpgjavaruntime.xml.

Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager: Eclipse Open Source Components
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / GEF / GMF / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-270-4613


Anthony Hunter---04/02/2009 02:11:34 PM---Thanks Dave, Batik 1.7 is not complete, we are missing the Batik PDF Transcoder, see Orbit Bug https

From:	Anthony Hunter/Ottawa/IBM
To:	Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	04/02/2009 02:11 PM
Subject:	Re: [orbit-dev] Batik 1.7 in Orbit

---

Thanks Dave,

Batik 1.7 is not complete, we are missing the Batik PDF Transcoder, see Orbit Bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=258349.

I will announce in the cross project list.

Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager: Eclipse Open Source Components
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / GEF / GMF / Modeling Tools 
Phone: 613-270-4613

David M Williams ---04/02/2009 01:23:37 PM---> The Batik 1.7 projects are flagged as red in the report Dave sent > out earlier today. I am not su

From:	David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:	Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	04/02/2009 01:23 PM
Subject:	Re: [orbit-dev] Batik 1.7 in Orbit

---

> The Batik 1.7 projects are flagged as red in the report Dave sent 
> out earlier today. I am not sure I understand what that means since 
> we resolved bug 189139 in Orbit.

These status fields are filled in/controlled by who ever is responsible for the bundle. 
I'm not sure we've written down exactly what they mean, but red would generally mean 
"not ready for consumption". I've only scanned the lists, but not sure that bug should 
have been resolved, if it is not yet in the build (and it has dependancies which
caused some new CQs to just be opened). 

> Did we intend to put both Batik 1.6 and Batik 1.7 in Orbit at the 
> same time or did we expect everyone to move to Batik 1.7?

Normally, two, different 'minor' versions should be able to co-exists and according to 
"simultaneous release rules" people can use either. 
Assuming none are "singletons", of course, which no bundles in Orbit are (as far as I know). 
But, this does require some reality checking with adopters, and I know Batik has been problematic. 
At a minimum, you'd have to check what adopters wanted, and if they wanted to stay on 
1.6 while others moved to 1.7 that the 1.6 users specified a narrow pre-req range, etc. 

> 
> Given that Batik 1.7 actually has a couple of breaking API changes 
> and since we are past M6, I am inclined to postpone putting Batik 1.
> 7 into Galileo and put this into the M1 of the next release.

I agree, given the breaking changes, and the potential for someone to not 
have their pre-req ranges set quite right. (Unless, of course, it was a critical need for 
someone, in which case some negotiations would be in order). 

> 
> Since I am the one who filled in the 18 CQ to get Batik 1.7 into 
> Orbit, can we do this? I am not aware of anyone else who asked for 
> Batik 1.7 except e4, and they said they would adopt when it was there.

Yes. We can do it. Of course, it's always polite to let people know your plans, 
such as in the bugzilla or cross-project list ... and let people say if that breaks them, 
or if they have a critical need for an earlier delivery. 


_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev