[OpenLayers-Dev] Motion: 2.5 Final Release

[Erik Uzureau]

+1 euzuró

On 10/8/07, Paul Spencer <pspencer at dmsolutions.ca> wrote:
> +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
> > PSC
> > 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/ |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at openlayers.org
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>