<div>Um, wrong addressee, I wanted to post it to my collegue who's not signed on the list....</div>
<div>Sorry for the noise.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tamas<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/3/4 Tamas Szekeres <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:szekerest@gmail.com">szekerest@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">BTW: here are the related threads I've recently come up with:<br><br><a href="http://n2.nabble.com/The-legendary-story-of-mapObj-zoomRectangle-a-cabaret-show-td4670377.html" target="_blank">http://n2.nabble.com/The-legendary-story-of-mapObj-zoomRectangle-a-cabaret-show-td4670377.html</a><br>
<a href="http://n2.nabble.com/isValidItem-is-not-aware-of-the-OGR-special-attributes-td4670588.html" target="_blank">http://n2.nabble.com/isValidItem-is-not-aware-of-the-OGR-special-attributes-td4670588.html</a><br><br>Best regards,<br>
<br>Tamas<br><br><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/3/3 Tamas Szekeres <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:szekerest@gmail.com" target="_blank">szekerest@gmail.com</a>></span>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/3/3 Alan Boudreault <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aboudreault@mapgears.com" target="_blank">aboudreault@mapgears.com</a>></span>
<div><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">Tamas,<br><br>Someone also reported on IRC that problem (IIRC, 2-3 weeks ago). My change was<br>
a misinterpretation and shouldn't have been done. I had not understood why<br>this part of the code was different of the php similar function. As you said<br>on IRC "treating maxy >= miny as a failure is semantically irregular", but<br>
this commit changed the behavior of the function that exists for a long time.<br>I would suggest to revert it and backport it in branch 5.6.<br><br>Perhaps it would be a good opportunity to release 5.6.2 ? Are there enough<br>
important fixes in the branch?<br><br></blockquote></div>
<div><br>Alan,<br><br>If we accept the original version as the correct one (because of historical reasons) it would validate a new release of it's own. Otherwise the number of the people affected would be increasing as the time is passing by.<br>
<br></div></div>Best regards,<br><font color="#888888"><br>Tamas<br><br></font></blockquote></div></div></div><br></blockquote></div><br>