Hello Justin
Don't worry, it was our only anouncement. Personnaly, I will sign off from all
GeoTools mailing list soon, when it will look like that no question is going to
be asked (not necessarly about geotoolkit - it could have been about the future
of the referencing module for instance).
I realize that a lot of peoples worked very hard on GeoTools. But Justin, with
all the respect that I own to your work, to Andrea's work and all other, very
sincerly I believe that I probably gave more of my life to GeoTools 2 than
anyone else in this community.
Also from the last statement in your second paragraph, its look like that you
do
not realize that the vast majority of the work that I migrated to Geotoolkit up
to date was my own work - while I aknowledge the good work of Rueben Schulz on
projections (especially testings) and Remi Eve on WKT parsing. The most
controversial part - namely the Refraction's work on multithreading EPSG
factory
- has been discarted and rewrote from scratch. The geotoolkit coverage module
contains only the core that I wrote myself, with very few exceptions (mostly
ImageWorker, which I also rewrote completly anyway).
Obviously the fork is not approved by the PMC, but few forks are approved by
the
original project. Nevertheless this is part of OpenSource life, and the history
of OpenSource has many examples of forks that became more widely adopted than
the original project: Inkscape forked from Sodipodi (who remember Sodipodi
now?), Xorg forked from XFree86, etc.
Some GeoTools users and developers may move to Geotoolkit, but if such move
occurs massively it would confirm that the need for a cleaned library existed.
If this need does not exist, then most users will not migrate and GeoTools has
nothing to fear. However the private emails of support that we got give us the
feeling that we are going in a good direction - we were not the only one
incomfortable with the state of GeoTools.
You could see benefit from that fork: less hard debates on the mailing list,
more freedom to apply you own changes one your clone of the code if you wish,
and you have an opportunity to make the GeoTools build lighter by deleting some
modules, eventually replacing some of them by dependencies toward fixed
geotoolkit releases (so more stability on your side).
Regards,
Martin
Justin Deoliveira a écrit :
> Am I the only one who feels that making Geotoolkit announcements on this
> list is inappropriate? I understand that you have your reasons for
> forking, and I respect that. But this fork was in no way authorized or
> approved by the GeoTools PSC.
>
> This is just my opinion, but this seems more or less like an attempt to
> poach resources from the GeoTools community, which I have serious issue
> with. Many people have put a lot of hard work in building the geotools
> library into what it is. You have publicly stated that the end result of
> this work is "not good enough" in so many words. Doing that and then
> using resources that those same people have worked long and hard to
> build goes against the spirit of good will that we are trying to maintain.
>
> The other PSC members may disagree with me here, but I would prefer that
> you use other forums for making these sorts of announcements.
>
> -Justin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Register Now & Save for Velocity, the Web Performance & Operations
Conference from O'Reilly Media. Velocity features a full day of
expert-led, hands-on workshops and two days of sessions from industry
leaders in dedicated Performance & Operations tracks. Use code vel09scf
and Save an extra 15% before 5/3. http://p.sf.net/sfu/velocityconf
_______________________________________________
Geotools-gt2-users mailing list
Geotools-gt2-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-gt2-users
