Justin Deoliveira a écrit :
> The mess that resulted from the threaded EPSG work is unfortunate. But
> Simone is correct that there are processes in place to protect against
> this sort of thing. It is your job as the maintainer to demand a
> proposal, ask for patches, have people work on a branch, etc...
The EPSG work has been done on a branch, sleeped there one or two years because
I didn't had the time to review, then I got pressure for accepting the merge on
the trunk without review. I understand the wish to get this work pushed in a
more visible space. DVS, while not the solution to everything neither a fix for
lack of concensus, could nevertheless have been of help.
I think that the GeoTools governance model is broken. Linux, Gnumeric, BSD,
Java
don't work the way we are trying to work. We vote on topic about modules that
most of us don't understand enough. We contradict ourself about the maintainer
role. Recents email expose different views about maintenainer roles. And the
following links:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOT/3+Module+Maintainers
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOT/4+Project+Management+Committee
contradict:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOT/GeoTools+change+proposal
However a valid point of recent discussion is that "geotidy" should never had a
"geotools 3" label. At the time geotidy was created, it was aimed to be short
lived (I was suppose to finish in December). I'm more than 3 months late and
confusion increase. I'm going to search-and-replace every occurences of
"GeoTools 3" by "<whatever> 3" in the next 48 hours.
Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
