Personnaly, being the author of that change, this one is precisely the type of change that I'm really reluctant to backport. Much too large and risky for a stable branch, on top of previous changes over the the whole NITF driver since 1.6, etc... I see support for 64-bit offsets in NITF more as a new feature than a bug fix.
Le Wednesday 10 June 2009 20:11:00 Matt Klaric, vous avez écrit : > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Even Rouault > <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > > 1.7 release date hasn't been decided yet. There is no precise criterion > > to determine when it happens : it depends mainly on when RFC or major > > work planned by developers have been implemented. But if you look at the > > release date of previous "major" versions (1.6.0 ~ 04-Dec-2008, 1.5.0 ~ > > 20-Dec-2007, > > 1.4.0 ~ 5-Jan-2007), you could expect 1.7.0 for the end of 2009. > > Good to know. > > > Depending on the bug fix (which one are you refering to ? ticket number, > > SVN > > revision), it could be considered to be backported into the next > > maintenance > > version of the 1.6.x branch. But 1.6.1 has been released just a few weeks > > ago, so 1.6.2 won't likely be released before a few months. > > I'm looking at ticket #2989. See: http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/2989 > > I'll likely end up creating a patch for my gentoo ebuild unless this gets > backported into a 1.6.2 release. It's tough to deal with some of the new, > large GeoEye-1 scenes without this fix. > > Thanks, > Matt _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
