I have updated the page to make the idea a bit more clear; sorry I named the initial profile "unsupported" as that caused some confusion in the IRC logs. Jody
Jody Garnett wrote: > I was hoping to get it approved today; so we can change the release > process for your release this week. I have the commit ready to go. > In the IRC meeting there was some confusion over my intension with the > use of profiles and the -Dall flag. I would like to chunk the unsupported > modules down: > -P gdal - for the gdal stuff > -P jdbc - for H2, oracle etc... > -P fm - for some of the work RobA and gabriel have been working on > -P swing - for swing widgets pending > > And then use the -Dall flag on the build box so everything that is > expected be deployed can be tested all the time. > Jody > > Justin Deoliveira wrote: > >> Sure, I will run todays meeting. Are we expecting a vote on this >> proposal today? Or just presenting it? >> >> Jody Garnett wrote: >> >>> Justin Deoliveira wrote: >>> >>>>> I think my list is down to: >>>>> - Sort out how unsupported modules are handled (I owe everyone a >>>>> proposal for Monday's meeting) >>>>> - Go through the user guide examples (they user list has kindly >>>>> been providing feedback). >>>>> >>>> Is there anything I can do to help here? >>>> >>> Can you run todays GeoTools meeting (I am on a customers site and >>> cannot attend). I want to make sure the handling of unsupported >>> modules is sorted out; we decided on a direction last meeting and I >>> was supposed to write up a proposal. >>> >>>> I can probably help with the maven releasish type stuff. One thing >>>> we did recently in GeoServer to include extension modules in the >>>> release was add some release specific profiles to include / exclude >>>> certain modules. I wonder if that will work here. >>>> >>> Indeed that is what my proposal for todays meeting is about: >>> - >>> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Handling+of+Unsupported+Modules >>> >>> >>>>> We went through most of the major issues with respect to headers >>>>> and licensing the last couple releases - but it would be double >>>>> check known issues on this page: >>>>> - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/GeoTools+Provenance+Review >>>>> >>> Anything on the list of "known issues" is fair game; help would be >>> greatly appreciated. >>> Jody >>> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Geotools-devel mailing list > Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
