+1 euzuró
On 10/8/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 Paul > > On 7-Oct-07, at 10:24 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote: > > > 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 > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Chief Technology Officer | > |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
