At first glance, it seems reasonable. Though I have a couple of questions for clarification.
Would it make sense to word the RFC so we prefer making dependency changes on major releases, but exceptions can be made? For example, if the dependency charge can be classified as a minor change and will cause minimal disruptions, then an exception can be made. What were the reasons for originally wanting to only apply dependency updates for major releases? How do we plan to ensure the original reasons are not overlooked for minor releases? On Mon, Jan 6, 2025, 10:06 AM Even Rouault via PROJ <proj@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Motion adopt https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/4369 changes to RFC-3 to > relax it to allow updating programming language standard in minor > versions, and update build requirements for PROJ 9.6 to be C++17. > > +1 > > Even > > -- > http://www.spatialys.com > My software is free, but my time generally not. > Butcher of all kinds of standards, open or closed formats. At the end, > this is just about bytes. > > _______________________________________________ > PROJ mailing list > PROJ@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj >
_______________________________________________ PROJ mailing list PROJ@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
