Hi there,
Apologies if this is already covered in another thread, but I can't seem to
find it. Is a new release of Apache Commons Imaging imminent?
Thanks for your help
William
Hi William,
Not sure. I will start looking at the issues to see what is missing for
1.0, but I suspect we are not ready for a final release yet.
I think there was some discussion about an M1 or RC1 release of sorts, but
I am out of the loop. The most important thing to know is that there is a
ver
BTW, let us know if there is any issue not resolved that you need/would
like to see in the next release, or if you can help testing/triaging the
issues.
On JIRA you can filter by the milestone/release. Check what's in 1.0 and
1.0-alphaN (where N may vary) and is open. Any help there would be
appre
I would like to have an M1 release to push out the current code base.
I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API right,
specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV.
Gary
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 6:36 AM Bruno Kinoshita
wrote:
> BTW, let us know if there i
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 e
Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita
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.
>
>
> Agre
>
> 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'
It's just a label that says not 1.0 but really it seems like a label I see
more often than alpha and beta these days. The main idea for me is that we
should have a couple of releases IMO before we stamp a 1.0 and set a binary
compatibility base line.
I am happy to call releases alpha, beta, or mil
Yes: M is for milestone.
Gary
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 10:40 AM Bruno Kinoshita
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
