Hi guys, On 10/13/05, jgarnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alessio Fabiani wrote: > > Hi Martin, hi list > > > So ... we think that may be very useful to split (temporally or not ?) > > the GeoTools Raster package from the main package (something similar to > > the Referencing package) in order to let us work more easily on that > > without breaking the main build. Meybe we can create a sort of > > raster-branch on GeoTools with the splitted coverages where to commit > > all the code and made some experimentation. > > Are you referring to just the interfaces? I general we are trying to break > main > up according to they layer diagram available in the developers guide. Martin > just split main up once, and I am busting out all the interfaces after the > 24th. >
We are referring to the org.geotools.*.coverage* packages in geotools 2.2 trunk > If there is good work for you guys to do, then lets keep modifying what we > have > while we wait for the ISO based interface to come together. > Moving to ISo is not going to be painful and we need something pretty soon therefore for the moment the only way to go is working with and on what we already have. Bryce and Meghan from USFS Fire Lab came to NURC in Italy a couple of days ago in order to start a closer collaboration with geotools and geoserver. We basically came up with something like a todo list to for rasters and WCS. Next days Bryce should send out a report on that. > What would really help is a point list of what packages you guys need broken > out > from main ... > We can do that > > But the very important thing for us is that we absolutely don't want to > > be de-synchronized from the GeoTools trunk release, this is one of the > > main reasons a split can be useful. > > If I understand you, you are not comfortable working on a branch - and then > merging when you are done? > We want to do tath but we really would like to have the cverage part separated from the rest since we are coding for the feature part as well and we would like to keep different versions. > > We would like to know what do you think about that and if our proposal > > is acceptable for you and, obviously, any kind of comment and suggestion. > > I would need to hear a bit more of your rational, one of the things we are > trying for is to not have RnD work happen on trunk. So even to perform the > split I would take a branch, separate out the raster support, ensure > everything > works. Merge and release a milestone. > I agree, once Bryce send out the report we could talk a bit on that but we would definitely work on a branch (caring for some to keep the other parts, like features in sinch on our branch). > As you noticed today, when just prevented 2.1.x from going ahead it took > minuets > before developers noticed and were prevented from work. Trunk is going to be > in > exactly the same situation ... > > Jody > > Simone. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, > and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl > _______________________________________________ > Geotools-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
