Justin Deoliveira a écrit : > What bothers me more is how changes to geoapi have been handled > recently. In some cases ( like Ben's proposed changes ) it seems a > formal proposal is needed. However in the case of recent style changes > it seems breaking api is ok. It seems ambiguous to me.
I think we missed coherence in our discussion... On my side I'm really fine about Ben applying his change, and in my mind the "pending" module was created for that purpose. I replied to Ben on the mailing list saying than I'm fine with him applying the change: https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=499BF97E.7080707%40geomatys.fr The only thing is that I don't know to who Ben should talk in order to synchronize his work with GeoTools code base. As a side note: there is no need to write a formal change proposal. They were a need for that one or two years ago, at the time we were tied to the GO-1 specification. But we are not tied anymore to GO-1. Formally, the old OGC GeoAPI working group has been created and a new one ("GeoAPI SWG 3.0") has been created. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
