I would say given that we haven't officially released it yet I would be +1
on backporting the api change in the interest of keeping the two branches
consistent.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Andrea Aime
<[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Justin Deoliveira
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Sounds reasonable to me but I will let Niels chime in.
>>
>> Regarding the backport is there a reason not to backport it to 2.4.x?
>> Thinking it is best to not diverge unless the code on master is unstable
>> (which doesn't seem to be the case here) so that future backports remain
>> trivial.
>>
>
> Here is the patch applied on trunk:
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/commit/01843f8be22e7e30ea1acc77e3bb2de72a552f14
>
> So, shall I backport it to 2.4.x? (no particular objection to the backport
> from me, CSW just graduated
> and we don't have a release with it included in the wild)
>
> Cheers
> Andrea
>
> --
> ==
> Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more
> information.
> ==
>
> Ing. Andrea Aime
> @geowolf
> Technical Lead
>
> GeoSolutions S.A.S.
> Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
> 55054 Massarosa (LU)
> Italy
> phone: +39 0584 962313
> fax: +39 0584 1660272
> mob: +39 339 8844549
>
> http://www.geo-solutions.it
> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and
AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights,
analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management.
Visit us today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
