RE: Re: release of commons-imaging

William Borg Barthet <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.jakarta.commons.user
Message-ID <CAC7R0iJUaqaNd87HQuPs2W3noF0sVNfudk4AjSk+z0S8pnoBcw@mail.gmail.com>
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 <[email protected]>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita
> > > <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.