Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3E2F9F01.7040506@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:51:29 +0100
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org>
Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org
Organization: Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: 0.3 release?
References: <20030123074005.GB1882@expresso.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20030123074005.GB1882@expresso.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Jeff Turner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> There have been lots of small changes since 0.2.1.  Some of the bigger
> ones:
> 
>  - Decent #fragment-identifiers
>  - krysalis-site skin added, which seems quite popular
>  - skin commonalities factored out into skins/common/*.  Makes writing
>    new skins easier.
>  - site.xml replacement for book.xml, site:, ext: links etc
>  - src/documentation/content/{* - xdocs} copied across, allowing
>    inclusion of static HTML (javadocs, etc).
>  - forrestbot fixed up (can't remember if this was after 0.2..)
>  - RSS changes.xml
> 
> http://forrestbot.cocoondev.org/sites//xml-forrest/changes.html

I think too it's time for a release.

> What ought to happen before we release 0.3?
> 
> http://forrestbot.cocoondev.org/sites//xml-forrest/forrest-issues.html
> 
> I would like to get the HTML fixed up
> http://issues.cocoondev.org/jira//ViewIssue.jspa?key=FOR-25

Yes.

> and I suspect the copying of non-xdoc contents isn't 100% because
> krysalis-site sites still don't have rounded tabs.

Yes too. Also, you should remove IMHO the html generation with jtidy in 
the verbatim docs, because since we copy them all across, it doesn't 
make sense anymore.

I think that it's time for a release, but I have a couple of things I 
still have to commit.

  1. usage of .cwiki sources in wiki format
  2. pngs made from svgs
  3. advancement in the edit/ section

(1) and (2) work ok, and I am particularly interested in seeing what 
people think of (1). (3) is better but still needs fixes, but it was 
broken before anyway, so it won't really make much difference.

Shall I commit?

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------