Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-06 Thread Sören Gebbert
2016-10-06 21:26 GMT+02:00 Markus Metz : > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Sören Gebbert > wrote: > > > > > > 2016-10-04 22:22 GMT+02:00 Markus Metz : > >> > >> Recently I fixed bugs in r.stream.order,

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-06 Thread Markus Metz
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Sören Gebbert wrote: > > > 2016-10-04 22:22 GMT+02:00 Markus Metz : >> >> Recently I fixed bugs in r.stream.order, related to stream length >> calculations which are in turn used to determine stream

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-04 Thread Sören Gebbert
2016-10-04 22:22 GMT+02:00 Markus Metz : > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Sören Gebbert > wrote: > > Hi, > >> > >> > >> > > >> > You are very welcome to write the missing tests for core modules. > >> > > >> > However, i don't

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-04 Thread Anna Petrášová
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Markus Metz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Sören Gebbert > wrote: >> Hi, >>> >>> >>> > >>> > You are very welcome to write the missing tests for core modules. >>> > >>> > However, i don't

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-04 Thread Markus Metz
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Sören Gebbert wrote: > Hi, >> >> >> > >> > You are very welcome to write the missing tests for core modules. >> > >> > However, i don't understand the argument that because many core modules >> > have >> > no tests, therefore new

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-04 Thread Sören Gebbert
Hi, > > > > > You are very welcome to write the missing tests for core modules. > > > > However, i don't understand the argument that because many core modules > have > > no tests, therefore new modules don't need them. If developers of addon > > module are serious about the attempt to make their

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-04 Thread Helmut Kudrnovsky
Martin Landa wrote > Hi Markus, > > 2016-10-04 16:13 GMT+02:00 Markus Metz > markus.metz.giswork@ > : >> My guess for the r.stream.* modules is at least 40 man hours of >> testing to make sure they work correctly. That includes evaluation of >> float usage, handling of NULL data, comparison of

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-04 Thread Martin Landa
Hi Markus, 2016-10-04 16:13 GMT+02:00 Markus Metz : > My guess for the r.stream.* modules is at least 40 man hours of > testing to make sure they work correctly. That includes evaluation of > float usage, handling of NULL data, comparison of results with and >

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-04 Thread Martin Landa
Hi, 2016-10-02 21:27 GMT+02:00 Sören Gebbert : > In my humble opinion we should accept only new modules in core, that are > covered by gunittets and this should not only be related to addons. Every > new module must have tests. we should have definitely some

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-04 Thread Markus Metz
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Sören Gebbert wrote: > > > 2016-10-02 13:24 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert : >> >> On 01/10/16 21:25, Blumentrath, Stefan wrote: >>> >>> Sounds fair enough as requirements for new core modules. “Maintainable >>>

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-02 Thread Sören Gebbert
2016-10-02 13:24 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert : > > On 01/10/16 21:25, Blumentrath, Stefan wrote: >> >> Sounds fair enough as requirements for new core modules. “Maintainable >> code” would in praxis mean “the module has undergone a code review by a >> core developer”? >>

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-02 Thread Nikos Alexandris
* Moritz Lennert [2016-10-02 13:24:41 +0200]: On 01/10/16 21:25, Blumentrath, Stefan wrote: Sounds fair enough as requirements for new core modules. “Maintainable code” would in praxis mean “the module has undergone a code review by a core developer”? Those

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-02 Thread Moritz Lennert
On 01/10/16 21:25, Blumentrath, Stefan wrote: Sounds fair enough as requirements for new core modules. “Maintainable code” would in praxis mean “the module has undergone a code review by a core developer”? Those requirements would add to Markus requirement of “maturity”, which I would interpret

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-10-01 Thread Blumentrath, Stefan
Stefan From: grass-dev [mailto:grass-dev-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Sören Gebbert Sent: 30. september 2016 22:29 To: Markus Neteler <nete...@osgeo.org> Cc: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-09-30 Thread Sören Gebbert
Hi, I would strongly suggest to move only those addons into core, that have good documentation, maintainable code and python tests that run in the gunittest framework. Just my 2c Sören 2016-07-03 20:09 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler : > Hi, > > we may consider to move a few (!)

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-09-30 Thread Nikos Alexandris
* Yann Chemin [2016-09-30 10:14:39 +0200]: Hi, added my feelings (biased towards remote sensing, I admit) +1 => r.streams.* +1 => r.geomorphon +0 => i.segment.hierarchical (+1 if manual complete) +0 => v.class.mlpy +1 => v.class.ml +1 => r.randomforest +1 =>

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-09-30 Thread Yann Chemin
Hi, added my feelings (biased towards remote sensing, I admit) +1 => r.streams.* +1 => r.geomorphon +0 => i.segment.hierarchical (+1 if manual complete) +0 => v.class.mlpy +1 => v.class.ml +1 => r.randomforest +1 => i.segment.stats +1 => r.object.geometry +0 => v.class.mlR +0 => i.segment.uspo

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-09-30 Thread Moritz Lennert
On 29/09/16 23:49, Blumentrath, Stefan wrote: Hi, This discussion is actually a bit old, but maybe it is not too late to consider adding selected addons to trunk? From my personal user point of view the r.streams.* modules and r.geomorphon are indeed top candidates for inclusion in core!

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-09-29 Thread Blumentrath, Stefan
AM, grass-dev-requ...@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:grass-dev-requ...@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: From: Helmut Kudrnovsky <hel...@web.de<mailto:hel...@web.de>> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core Date: July 3, 2016 at 1:25:20 PM MST To: <g

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-05 Thread Martin Landa
Hi, 2016-07-05 15:06 GMT+02:00 Helena Mitasova : > for r.stream* and r.geomorphon (both worth to be included into the core) it > would be useful > to contact the developers (Jarek) - please remember that r.stream modules has been already included in trunk and later removed

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-05 Thread Rainer M Krug
Markus Neteler writes: > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Rainer M Krug wrote: >> Vaclav Petras writes: >>> This is out-of-topic here, but similarly we might want to introduce >>> something like [deprecated] for modules, options and

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-05 Thread Yann
On 05/07/2016 15:56, Markus Neteler wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Yann wrote: I can see in imagery: i.spec.sam, been working on it and using it for the last year. Will continue working on it the coming years. +1 What about the i.landsat8.* functions,

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-05 Thread Yann
what is the memory multiplier for a given image size to operate optimally in RAM? 1Gb image will need how many Gb RAM? On 05/07/2016 15:57, Vaclav Petras wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Yann wrote: Vaclav, what about i.edge? Loads everything into memory

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-05 Thread Markus Neteler
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Yann wrote: > I can see in imagery: > > i.spec.sam, been working on it and using it for the last year. Will continue > working on it the coming years. +1 > What about the i.landsat8.* functions, bringing them in core will increase > the use

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-05 Thread Markus Neteler
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Rainer M Krug wrote: > Vaclav Petras writes: >> This is out-of-topic here, but similarly we might want to introduce >> something like [deprecated] for modules, options and flags. >> ... >> Related to that, I wonder if we

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-05 Thread Vaclav Petras
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Yann wrote: > Vaclav, what about i.edge? Loads everything into memory without an option for "lowmem" processing. That's not ideal. ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-05 Thread Yann
I can see in imagery: i.spec.sam, been working on it and using it for the last year. Will continue working on it the coming years. What about the i.landsat8.* functions, bringing them in core will increase the use of GRASSGIS for Landsat 8 processing... I will probably use i.ortho.corr

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-05 Thread Helena Mitasova
for r.stream* and r.geomorphon (both worth to be included into the core) it would be useful to contact the developers (Jarek) - Vasek, can you please email him to ask about their interest in getting the modules included and make the necessary adjustments? From my discussion with Jarek last

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-05 Thread Helmut Kudrnovsky
>The r.stream* modules have been around for quite awhile and are very useful. regarding the r.stream.*-modules, some tickets may be solved first: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/2516 https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/2356 https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/2348

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-05 Thread Adrien ANDRÉ
Hi, I agree. Le 05/07/2016 00:05, Michael Barton a écrit : > The r.stream* modules have been around for quite awhile and are very > useful. > -- Adrien André www.mapaou-web.fr ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-04 Thread Michael Barton
ss-dev-requ...@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: From: Helmut Kudrnovsky <hel...@web.de<mailto:hel...@web.de>> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core Date: July 3, 2016 at 1:25:20 PM MST To: <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>&

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-04 Thread Rainer M Krug
Vaclav Petras writes: > On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Markus Neteler wrote: > > The general criteria are > - code follows submission standards > - must be portable > - must be well documented with examples > - must be of interest to a wider

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-03 Thread Vaclav Petras
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Markus Neteler wrote: > The general criteria are > - code follows submission standards > - must be portable > - must be well documented with examples > - must be of interest to a wider audience > I would add "well tested (i.e. very mature) or

Re: [GRASS-dev] Upcoming 7.2.0: review which addons to move to core

2016-07-03 Thread Yann
Any imagery modules that would be possible candidates? On 03/07/2016 20:09, Markus Neteler wrote: Hi, we may consider to move a few (!) mature addons to core. Thoughts? Markus ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org