> > Are you meaning the unsupported modules aren't copied over to the > stable branch? This is nonsense, and would create quite some troubles > for Geoserver, since we are providing some of the unsupported modules > as extra datastores (Oracle, MySql, anyone? Lately Oracle saw more > fixes than WFS datastore, shall we move it to unsupported as well?).
I did mean that but you are correct... that would make things pretty tough on GeoServer.... So how about a compromise. 1. We copy over all unsupported modules to 2.4 2. We create blocker tasks against 2.4-RC0 to move arcsde,db2,pg-versioned, and xml-* to supported 3. We ensure that any unsupported modules that remain do not into the official 2.4 release. What do people think? > > I'd say we keep the unsupported directory in the 2.4.x branch, or > GeoServer will have to find a way to have everything in the > same source tree, at the cost of maintaining its own branch or > branching the library altogether. > > Cheers > Andrea > > !DSPAM:4007,4695439d56278362916074! > -- Justin Deoliveira The Open Planning Project http://topp.openplans.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
