Re: [gdal-dev] OGR-VFK in 1.9
Hi, 2012/11/5 Etienne Tourigny : > e, the vfk driver would be optional (or at least could be > disabled), so should not create any problems for people that do not > compile it, right? there is `--without-vfk` to disable VFk driver if needed. Martin -- Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Re: [gdal-dev] OGR-VFK in 1.9
in any case, the vfk driver would be optional (or at least could be disabled), so should not create any problems for people that do not compile it, right? Etienne On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Even Rouault wrote: > Selon Martin Landa : > >> Hi, >> >> 2012/10/26 Martin Landa : >> >> However, as your changes only affect your driver, I think it would be >> >> easier to commit them to 1.9.0 without an RFC. It would be easier if >> >> you prepare a small wiki page (similar to RFCs) describing the >> >> changes, and create at least one bug entry. >> > >> > I have filled the ticket for this issue [1]. If a wiki page is also >> > required I will prepare it too. >> > >> > Thanks for info in advance. Best regards, Martin >> > >> > [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/4872 >> >> important from my POV is to include the updated VFK driver in 1.9.3. >> Suggested changes affects only VFK driver. Are there any objections >> for backporting VFK driver to 1.9 branch? > > Martin, > > I don't have objections. My only fear is that the addition of the SQLite > dependency in the VFK driver would cause compilation problems in some > setups/platforms that would have an ancient SQLite version for example. But as > we have already the SQLite dependency in the GML driver, provided you don't > use > too recent sqlite3_XXX functions (and a quick grep does not show anything > exotic > indeed), this should be OK. Did you also test that the compilation is OK for > people who configure GDAL without the sqlite dependency ? > > Even ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Re: [gdal-dev] OGR-VFK in 1.9
Selon Martin Landa : > Hi, > > 2012/10/26 Martin Landa : > >> However, as your changes only affect your driver, I think it would be > >> easier to commit them to 1.9.0 without an RFC. It would be easier if > >> you prepare a small wiki page (similar to RFCs) describing the > >> changes, and create at least one bug entry. > > > > I have filled the ticket for this issue [1]. If a wiki page is also > > required I will prepare it too. > > > > Thanks for info in advance. Best regards, Martin > > > > [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/4872 > > important from my POV is to include the updated VFK driver in 1.9.3. > Suggested changes affects only VFK driver. Are there any objections > for backporting VFK driver to 1.9 branch? Martin, I don't have objections. My only fear is that the addition of the SQLite dependency in the VFK driver would cause compilation problems in some setups/platforms that would have an ancient SQLite version for example. But as we have already the SQLite dependency in the GML driver, provided you don't use too recent sqlite3_XXX functions (and a quick grep does not show anything exotic indeed), this should be OK. Did you also test that the compilation is OK for people who configure GDAL without the sqlite dependency ? Even ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Re: [gdal-dev] OGR-VFK in 1.9
Hi, 2012/10/26 Martin Landa : >> However, as your changes only affect your driver, I think it would be >> easier to commit them to 1.9.0 without an RFC. It would be easier if >> you prepare a small wiki page (similar to RFCs) describing the >> changes, and create at least one bug entry. > > I have filled the ticket for this issue [1]. If a wiki page is also > required I will prepare it too. > > Thanks for info in advance. Best regards, Martin > > [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/4872 important from my POV is to include the updated VFK driver in 1.9.3. Suggested changes affects only VFK driver. Are there any objections for backporting VFK driver to 1.9 branch? Thanks, Martin -- Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Re: [gdal-dev] OGR-VFK in 1.9
Hi, 2012/1/18 Etienne Tourigny : > However, as your changes only affect your driver, I think it would be > easier to commit them to 1.9.0 without an RFC. It would be easier if > you prepare a small wiki page (similar to RFCs) describing the > changes, and create at least one bug entry. I have filled the ticket for this issue [1]. If a wiki page is also required I will prepare it too. Thanks for info in advance. Best regards, Martin [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/4872 -- Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Re: [gdal-dev] OGR-VFK in 1.9
Martin, My understanding is that you can back-port bugfixes which have bug entries. New features and important changes require permission of the PSC or release manager and perhaps an RFC. However, as your changes only affect your driver, I think it would be easier to commit them to 1.9.0 without an RFC. It would be easier if you prepare a small wiki page (similar to RFCs) describing the changes, and create at least one bug entry. >From rfc : http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc3_commiters - Changes should not be committed in stable branches without a corresponding bug id. Any change worth pushing into the stable version is worth a bug entry. - Never commit new features to a stable branch without permission of the PSC or release manager. Normally only fixes should go into stable branches. - New features go in the main development trunk. - Only bug fixes should be committed to the code during pre-release code freeze, without permission from the PSC or release manager. - Significant changes to the main development version should be discussed on the gdal-dev list before you make them, and larger changes will require a RFC approved by the PSC. regards, Etienne On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Martin Landa wrote: > Hi all, > > in the last days I have fundamentally updated VFK [1] driver in OGR > [2]. Beside fundamental optimization also some serious bugs have been > fixed. I wanted to ask you what is release policy regarding 1.9 > branch. Could I merge recent updates in VFK driver to this branch? > > Thanks for clarification. Martin > > [1] http://gdal.org/ogr/drv_vfk.html > [2] http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/log/trunk/gdal/ogr/ogrsf_frmts/vfk > > -- > Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa > ___ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
[gdal-dev] OGR-VFK in 1.9
Hi all, in the last days I have fundamentally updated VFK [1] driver in OGR [2]. Beside fundamental optimization also some serious bugs have been fixed. I wanted to ask you what is release policy regarding 1.9 branch. Could I merge recent updates in VFK driver to this branch? Thanks for clarification. Martin [1] http://gdal.org/ogr/drv_vfk.html [2] http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/log/trunk/gdal/ogr/ogrsf_frmts/vfk -- Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
