> On May 16, 2019, at 6:49 PM, Regina Obe <l...@pcorp.us> wrote:
> 
> -1
> 
> Not much has changed since we made this decision to make it non-public. In 
> fact ironically I feel like more people are using GEOS than before.
> I was hoping removing the C++ public would scare more people away so we could 
> do some major rework :).
> 
> I'd like us to be able to guarantee some bit of ABI stability before we go 
> taking this restriction off.
> 
> NO ONE READS READMES, they rely on at least some light punches :)

The decision to remove the C++ API from GEOS questions we as the GEOS PSC are 
trustworthy stewards of the library and shows disrespects for our users' 
investment and use of it. To have snapped our fingers and removed something 
that we know people were using because a few laggard packages in one packaging 
system caused some churn was a reckless overreaction. 

I vetoe'd the original proposal at the time because of the proposal to only 
allow installation of the C++ headers via opt-in. I regret not having holding 
firm on my veto, and I suppose it is now too late for us to maneuver around 
each other on the Prairie of Prax.

By the way, RFC6 is listed as Not Passed https://trac.osgeo.org/geos/wiki/RFC6 
<https://trac.osgeo.org/geos/wiki/RFC6> without a record of the vote, but the 
software was implemented as you proposed anyway. 

Howard
_______________________________________________
geos-devel mailing list
geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel

Reply via email to