Chris Holmes wrote: > My point was actually not so much that it shouldn't be a blocker, > more that rest config should be core. It's a bit weird to me that it's > not, as there are a lot of people using it. But I don't think > extensions not building should block a release - the release should just > go out without those extensions.
I prefer to think of GeoServer not as core+extensions but as those things in the release profile and those outside. Core+extensions is an architectural distinction, but the users care mostly about things we ship and things we do not ship. Sure, if we can't build an extension, we should kick it from the release profile, as you suggest. The problem is what to do if we can't build it only on some platforms. If we lose the ability to build an extension and kick it out of the release profile, it will harm the reputation of the extension and may block uptake of the new version of GeoServer by users who depend on the extension. Not something we should do lightly. I am not proposing anything. Just chewing the cud. ;-) -- Ben Caradoc-Davies <[email protected]> Software Engineer, CSIRO Exploration and Mining Australian Resources Research Centre 26 Dick Perry Ave, Kensington WA 6151, Australia ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
