Ben's done all his work on VC++ (imagine!) so when he merges in,
trunk will be broken until we clean it up a bit. I think that's a
good enough reason to branch 3.0. I concur with your concerns about
maintenance, but I don't know how much appetite there is for a
maintained, but semi-stable version versus a relatively static but
stable version. People used 2.2.x for a very long time, just because
it was a known-stable, even though most all the development time was
going into 3.0 at that point.
P
On 20-Dec-07, at 3:45 PM, Charlie Savage wrote:
It may seem precipitate to talk about 3.1 when we've spend over a
year in 3.0.0rcX, but Ben's work on the JTS upgrade and
PreparedGeometry are ready to see the light of day, and it makes
sense to put them into trunk. Which implies that 3.0.x should go
into a branch.
And probably be
released "officially". Discussion?
How much time will it take to merge Ben's work? How significant
are the changes? How much time until they are "production" ready?
Depending on those answers, I could be fine with just merging Ben's
changes in, stabilizing trunk, and then calling it 3.0.
Obviously in the general case branching off 3.0 would make sense.
But in this case, will anyone actually use that branch? Will
anyone maintain it (seems unlikely since there hasn't been
resources to wrap it up an release it). So maybe its not worth the
bother.
Charlie
P
_______________________________________________
geos-devel mailing list
geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
_______________________________________________
geos-devel mailing list
geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
_______________________________________________
geos-devel mailing list
geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
