+1 Erik Uzureau wrote: > +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 > >
-- Cameron Shorter Systems Architect, http://lisasoft.com.au Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050 Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254 _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
