Sean, > > Did you give any more thought to calling this release 3.0 because of the > breaking changes? Too late for that?
Yes, that would be a bit annoying to rename it now, at least in terms of communication since GDAL 2.5 is already known to be the version with the SRS revamp. Would have been more appropriate to raise this at the time RFC 73 was discussed. Re-reading our HOWTO-RELEASE, we should indeed probably have named it GDAL 3.0. But even if we add kept the few functions that have been removed, the change of behaviour of a few ones is an interesting case of what is considered part of the API or not... Even -- Spatialys - Geospatial professional services http://www.spatialys.com _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
