On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Markus Metz
markus.metz.gisw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2013/4/4 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:
since the
Hi,
2013/4/4 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:
since the r.stream.* modules are continuously requested and IMHO sufficiently
tested (according to user reports), I would move them to core if there are
no objections.
only
Markus N wrote:
since the r.stream.* modules are continuously requested
and IMHO sufficiently tested (according to user reports), I
would move them to core if there are no objections.
Coming back to this topic (delayed due to my outage in
winter): no objections, it seems.
I would be
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2013/4/4 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:
since the r.stream.* modules are continuously requested and IMHO
sufficiently
tested
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:
Hi,
since the r.stream.* modules are continuously requested and IMHO sufficiently
tested (according to user reports), I would move them to core if there are
no objections.
Coming back to this topic (delayed due to my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/11/12 23:41, Helmut Kudrnovsky wrote:
I agree that the quality of the r.stream.* modules is out of question.
these are very nice and useful modules with high quality.
For what concerns including it into the core, I would like to point you
On 16/11/12 09:10, Rainer M Krug wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/11/12 23:41, Helmut Kudrnovsky wrote:
I agree that the quality of the r.stream.* modules is out of question.
these are very nice and useful modules with high quality.
For what concerns including it
Hi,
since the r.stream.* modules are continuously requested and IMHO sufficiently
tested (according to user reports), I would move them to core if there are
no objections.
Markus
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
+1
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:
Hi,
since the r.stream.* modules are continuously requested and IMHO
sufficiently
tested (according to user reports), I would move them to core if there are
no objections.
Markus
since the r.stream.* modules are continuously requested and IMHO
sufficiently
tested (according to user reports), I would move them to core if there are
no objections.
+1
-
best regards
Helmut
--
View this message in context:
I agree that the quality of the r.stream.* modules is out of question.
these are very nice and useful modules with high quality.
For what concerns including it into the core, I would like to point you
out the discussion [1] about the
concept of toolboxes. The general orientation is not to
Ciao Enrico,
I agree that the quality of the r.stream.* modules is out of question. For
what concerns including it into the core, I would like to point you out the
discussion [1] about the concept of toolboxes. The general orientation is
not to include field specific groups of modules into the
Dear list,
as user involved in hydrological analysis, I think r.stream.* modules
are essential tools in GRASS GIS.
Their availability filled in the empty space left by the Horton
Machine / Fruid Turtles library (by prof. Rigon and his fantastic
team) no more supported for GRASS GIS.
Quality,
13 matches
Mail list logo
