[OpenLayers-Dev] Motion: 2.5 Final Release

Paul Spencer pspencer at dmsolutions.ca
Mon Oct 8 12:21:38 EDT 2007

+1 Paul

On 7-Oct-07, at 10:24 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:

> There have been no new regressions reported in the OpenLayers 2.5
> release in the time since the release of RC5.
> There is currently one outstanding issue that Tim had marked for  
> 2.5 --
> an improvement to GeometryCollection handling in GeoJSON parsing --  
> but
> it isn't a regression, and the use case where it actually affects  
> people
> is very small. I'm of the opinion that since the GeoJSON spec is  
> not yet
> 'done' -- there still could be more changes to it -- we shouldn't hold
> the release for another edge case lack of support: instead, if we  
> really
> do want this into something we call 2.5, I'd be in favor of pulling it
> back and doing a 2.5.1 when the spec is complete. (See
> http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1067 -- this lack of funtionality  
> only
> affects the case where a feature is passed with a  
> GeometryCollection as
> the geometry.)
> With that being the only outstanding issue, I'd like to motion that we
> release OpenLayers 2.5 on Tuesday afternoon eastern time -- in  
> about 40
> hours -- unless we hear anything new in terms of bug reports in the
> meantime. This release would not include the fix for #1067. (If the  
> hasn't voted by that time, I propose that the release be made as  
> soon as
> the PSC has voted.)
> I'm +1 on doing this, and will do the release engineering work if  
> there
> are votes against releasing.
> Additionally, I'd like to  put #1067 in trunk, and after the GeoJSON
> specification has been finalized, we pull any changes to the GeoJSON
> format back into a 2.5.1 after sufficient testing. The change that  
> we're
> looking at is, imho, too risky to put into a 2.5 release this late in
> the game -- I screwed that up once already ;) (Hence the RC5  
> instead of
> RC4.) I'm interested in what the developer community thinks about  
> doing
> this specifically to support full GeoJSON.
> The biggest reason for supporting the GeoJSON spec so strongly is that
> it is a format that we can round trip effectively, unlike many other
> formats. The simple feature model and limited geometry model allow  
> us to
> fully support GeoJSON input/output in OpenLayers, and that's important
> for people to be able to have/understand.
> Looking forward to feedback on either of these two items, and would  
> like
> to get the PSC to vote on the 2.5 release when they get a chance.
> Regards,
> -- 
> Christopher Schmidt
> MetaCarta
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at openlayers.org
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

|Paul Spencer                          pspencer at dmsolutions.ca    |
|Chief Technology Officer                                         |
|DM Solutions Group Inc                http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ |

More information about the Dev mailing list