[postgis-devel] wait till monday for final ?

[Sandro Santilli]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:03:11PM +0200, Mark Johnson wrote:

> And now you are demanding they finance a third time to get what they
> originally wanted?

I appreciated the background info (I didn't know myself this was
about targetting Android!) but I think it's important to distinguish
between maintainance costs and development costs.

Development costs are one-shot (as were first and second drive).
Maintainance costs are continuous.

While the first financing helped improving an existing asset
(the plpgsql function set) the second one created a new asset
(the liblwgeom_topo API).

While this new asset can improve the PostGIS experience (beside when it
contains bugs, which I'm taking care of), it may also augment
maintainance costs, and this is something that should be considered.

> The likelihood of such organisations contributing in this way in the
> future will become very slim if they are treated in such a way.

Sorry, treated in which way ?
I think RT has obtained what it paid for (and more),
and I surely do know they have no problem with the ABI breakage
because it was preventively discussed with the developer of the
currently only user of that API (spatialite). Anyway, I'd let them
speak for themselves shall there be any mistreatment suspected.

> The offer should not have been accepted if there was a lack or willingness
> to maintain the gift that was given to you.

I think current maintainance of liblwgeom is not posing any major
problem (that I'm not taking care myself).

Having a separate release cycle for liblwgeom would _obviously_ have
additional cost. But that's not what the gift was about.

--strk; 

  ()   Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer
  /\   http://strk.keybit.net/services.html