Re: [GRASS-dev] [release planning] GRASS GIS 8.3.0
otrd., 2023. g. 21. febr., plkst. 21:11 — lietotājs Vaclav Petras () rakstīja: > > I still agree that it is a potentially big change for those who actually > followed the version numbering, but I hope if there is some criticism of > that, we would know already. > Or simply they don't know yet that 8.3 will not be a development testing version ;-) Before announcement of upcoming 8.3.0 release it was not even communicated to the -dev ML. In practice though I do agree – most likely nobody cares about version numbers anyway. Māris. ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [release planning] GRASS GIS 8.3.0
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 13:19, Veronica Andreo wrote: > > El vie, 17 feb 2023 a las 15:25, Markus Neteler () > escribió: > >> >> Version scheme update: please note that we abandon the odd/even scheme >> and go for semantic versioning, i.e. 8.3.x comes after the 8.2.x >> series. See also the related RFC: Version Numbering >> (https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/pull/2357). >> > > Just wondering.. Should we adopt an RFC that has not yet been merged nor > approved via motion? There's a list of tasks in the PR that still seems > incomplete and I see that Vashek moved the milestone of the RFC to 8.4... > I'm not trying to delay the release -either it is called 8.3 or 8.4, it is > overdue- but IMO we need to agree on the RFC, no? Shall I prepare a motion > and we approve a version 1 of the Version Numbering RFC? > Ideally, yes, but practically we can follow it already. We agreed at the PSC meeting that we want to follow it, although we did not vote on actually approving it because it was not finished. We also don't have any formal procedure for numbering except tradition. There were also no negative comments for the PR in the PR itself. Hence, the RFC in the PR is the closest thing to an official guidance we have. We are using the yet-unmerged Python version RFC in a similar way. The version numbering PR did not make it through my triage when I was cleaning PRs and issues before the release because it did not pass my rule "ready or important to have in the 8.3 code". I still agree that it is a potentially big change for those who actually followed the version numbering, but I hope if there is some criticism of that, we would know already. Vaclav ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [release planning] GRASS GIS 8.3.0
Hi Vero, all, On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 7:19 PM Veronica Andreo wrote: > > Hi Markus, > > El vie, 17 feb 2023 a las 15:25, Markus Neteler () > escribió: >> >> Hi devs, >> >> After a long time of development and many, many improvements, it is >> time to release 8.3.0. >> >> Version scheme update: please note that we abandon the odd/even scheme >> and go for semantic versioning, i.e. 8.3.x comes after the 8.2.x >> series. See also the related RFC: Version Numbering >> (https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/pull/2357). > > > Just wondering.. Should we adopt an RFC that has not yet been merged nor > approved via motion? There's a list of tasks in the PR that still seems > incomplete and I see that Vashek moved the milestone of the RFC to 8.4... Not sure why a RFC should be related to a release milestone? > I'm not trying to delay the release -either it is called 8.3 or 8.4, it is > overdue- Overdue, yes. > but IMO we need to agree on the RFC, no? Shall I prepare a motion and we > approve a version 1 of the Version Numbering RFC? Yes, let's get this RFC approved and then follow our plan. thanks Markus ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [release planning] GRASS GIS 8.3.0
Hi Markus, El vie, 17 feb 2023 a las 15:25, Markus Neteler () escribió: > Hi devs, > > After a long time of development and many, many improvements, it is > time to release 8.3.0. > > Version scheme update: please note that we abandon the odd/even scheme > and go for semantic versioning, i.e. 8.3.x comes after the 8.2.x > series. See also the related RFC: Version Numbering > (https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/pull/2357). > Just wondering.. Should we adopt an RFC that has not yet been merged nor approved via motion? There's a list of tasks in the PR that still seems incomplete and I see that Vashek moved the milestone of the RFC to 8.4... I'm not trying to delay the release -either it is called 8.3 or 8.4, it is overdue- but IMO we need to agree on the RFC, no? Shall I prepare a motion and we approve a version 1 of the Version Numbering RFC? Vero ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] RFC: variations of statistics in r.neighbors (and the stats lib)
Hi Francesco, On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 07:09, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > > ...or change quantile and quartile into a list of 1..2 comma separated > values. > > Much better, isn't it? > Maybe, but explicit named arguments are nice, too. Do you plan to open a PR? A more experimental code could also go to the grass-addons repo. Vaclav ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
