Humm.. Lots of requirements... > Sorry for the license, I needed a clear answer :-) I personnaly would prefere > LGPL, like postgres.
Doesn't seems like a good idea to make it different than PostGIS. How is LGPL different from LPG? I'm a license ignorant. > can you consider to use a template doc (wiki in github?, or pure markdown) > , more detailled than just in code comment? I feel the current PostGIS doc > per function should be a lower limit of documentation. There is a quick list of available functions at the beginning of the file. I would rather go for less maintenance as possible. If you want to copy/remove the doc from the file to the wiki. Feel free to do it. > Also important : you may quickely go to several dozens of functions, why > not decide now for an architecture (classifying the contrib), maybe with > label, maybe with classical folders? Like "raster", "util", "rewrite", etc > etc. A small step at a time... > Last : what is the process for a contrib to be accepted? Surely it should be > tested by another personn than dev before being added? I wrote some criterias at the beginning of the file. It goes like this: -your function is written in pure PL/pgSQL (no C!), -your function is generic enough to be useful to other PostGIS users, -you follow functions and variables naming and indentation conventions already in use in the files, -you document your function like the ones already provided, -you provide some tests in the postgis_addons_test.sql file, -you add the necessary DROP statements in the postgis_addons_uninstall.sql file. Pierre _______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
