I'm very concerned by this too. It sucks to not get contributions from
Google. But it's even worse as an indicator of things that may scare off
others who are similar.
I'd be very much in favor of just using the Apache one, and moving to it
quickly. To reiterate for all, this is just for the contr
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Chris Holmes wrote:
> I'm very concerned by this too. It sucks to not get contributions from
> Google. But it's even worse as an indicator of things that may scare off
> others who are similar.
>
> I'd be very much in favor of just using the Apache one, and moving
Hi,
We too are trying to make use of the KML support in 8.6 stable to generate
KML from ESRI Shapefiles. We would like to generate KML 2.2, but have not
been successful.
The examples online all seem to use the default org.geotools.kml package,
which results in KML 2.1 XML, like:
http://earth.g
Andrea Ai
I will do up a proposal then, no sense beating around the bush. Perhaps this
could of cut down some of our earlier contribution agreement madness last year
:D
--
Jody Garnett
On Friday, 1 February 2013 at 3:02 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Chris Holmes (mailto:c
Found an example of another project playing a similar game, indeed they have a
nice write up explaining what this stuff is about.
- https://www.qubit-toolkit.org/wiki/Contribute_code
--
Jody Garnett
On Friday, 1 February 2013 at 10:17 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> I will do up a proposal then,
Jody Garn
