Le lun. 19 avr. 2021 à 20:26, Matt Juntunen <matt.juntu...@hotmail.com> a écrit : > > Hi Gilles, > > Are you suggesting skipping another beta version and having numbers 1.0 and > geometry 1.0 be the next releases?
Yes, that's the question which I'm asking. There is no point in waiting much longer for feedback that may never come... Of course, we aim for the perfect design but if we get it wrong and must evolve the library in a non-compatible way, all that will happen is that the base package will change name. > I could get on board with that. It would be great to have an > official release of these. Well, it's up to the main contributor(s) to let us know when it seems that the design is good enough given the knowledge shared within the current community. > What needs to be done on numbers before we're ready for > 1.0 (aside from moving over some code from geometry)? The most basic utilities haven't fundamentally changed. It will be nice to increase the visibility of the many consistency and performance improvements. Modules to perhaps be left out are also TBD (in another thread). > > On another note, I don't feel like the enclosing and hull > modules in geometry are quite ready for prime time yet. > So, I would leave those out of 1.0. That would be quite fine, I think. Gilles >> [...] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
