On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 22:29 +0100, Glynn Clements wrote: > [Well, personally I would just remove r.terraflow, having been written > without any consideration for GRASS' build system or coding > conventions, or portability in general. But that's just me.]
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't know how practical that is at the moment. r.terraflow breaks often, has been a headache to maintain and the author does not have the time/resources to keep it current. OTOH, it is a useful module and is portable in the sense that there is a ArcGIS version. Perhaps relegate it to the SVN addon repository since it does break so many GRASS conventions? I wish we had some statistics on module frequency to determine how inconvenient such a move would be. Personally, I've only used r.terraflow on occasion, but that type of analysis is not my forte. -- 73, de Brad KB8UYR/6 <rez touchofmadness com> _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
