+1 All the stuff I want is in 2.6 :-) The sooner 2.5 is cooked, the sooner 2.6 gets going!
John -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Schmidt Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 9:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [OpenLayers-Dev] Motion: 2.5 Final Release There have been no new regressions reported in the OpenLayers 2.5 release in the time since the release of RC5. There is currently one outstanding issue that Tim had marked for 2.5 -- an improvement to GeometryCollection handling in GeoJSON parsing -- but it isn't a regression, and the use case where it actually affects people is very small. I'm of the opinion that since the GeoJSON spec is not yet 'done' -- there still could be more changes to it -- we shouldn't hold the release for another edge case lack of support: instead, if we really do want this into something we call 2.5, I'd be in favor of pulling it back and doing a 2.5.1 when the spec is complete. (See http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1067 -- this lack of funtionality only affects the case where a feature is passed with a GeometryCollection as the geometry.) With that being the only outstanding issue, I'd like to motion that we release OpenLayers 2.5 on Tuesday afternoon eastern time -- in about 40 hours -- unless we hear anything new in terms of bug reports in the meantime. This release would not include the fix for #1067. (If the PSC hasn't voted by that time, I propose that the release be made as soon as the PSC has voted.) I'm +1 on doing this, and will do the release engineering work if there are votes against releasing. Additionally, I'd like to put #1067 in trunk, and after the GeoJSON specification has been finalized, we pull any changes to the GeoJSON format back into a 2.5.1 after sufficient testing. The change that we're looking at is, imho, too risky to put into a 2.5 release this late in the game -- I screwed that up once already ;) (Hence the RC5 instead of RC4.) I'm interested in what the developer community thinks about doing this specifically to support full GeoJSON. The biggest reason for supporting the GeoJSON spec so strongly is that it is a format that we can round trip effectively, unlike many other formats. The simple feature model and limited geometry model allow us to fully support GeoJSON input/output in OpenLayers, and that's important for people to be able to have/understand. Looking forward to feedback on either of these two items, and would like to get the PSC to vote on the 2.5 release when they get a chance. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1055 - Release Date: 10/7/2007 10:24 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1057 - Release Date: 10/8/2007 9:04 AM This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
