[gdal-dev] 1.9 Release Process
lauri.kajan at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 02:01:04 EST 2011
I would be more than happy if there was xyzm support in OGR. But I
thought this won't happen until we decide to implement OGC Simple
Feature Access 1.2 specification.
Now ogr implements Simple Feature 1.1 that does not support M-values
or even Z-coordinates.
It would be nice to see this in GDAL 2.0
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Pirmin Kalberer <pi_ml at sourcepole.com> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 16. Dezember 2011, 21.04:13 schrieb Even Rouault:
>> Le vendredi 16 décembre 2011 15:48:30, Pirmin Kalberer a écrit :
>> > Hi Frank, all
>> > Am Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2011, um 08.31:22 schrieb Frank Warmerdam:
>> > > Folks,
>> > >
>> > > I would like to have a GDAL/OGR 1.9 release by the end of this year,
>> > > ideally before Christmas. We have not formalized a release process
>> > > for the project, but I'd like to follow the approach of past years.
>> > > This basically consists of a few beta releases, followed by a
>> > > release
>> > > candidate when things seem to be in good shape. The release
>> > > candidates
>> > > would be voted on by the PSC before becoming official.
>> > >
>> > > Anyone with significant work they would like to accomplish before
>> > > 1.9.0
>> > > should reply to this thread with information on the planned work.
>> > I've created a patch adding read support for shapefile measure values:
>> > http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/2374
>> > If someone could review the patch, I would like to include it in trunk
>> > for the 1.9.0 release.
>> I see you just report the M coordinate as the Z coordinate. I feel that the
>> approach proposed is a bit hackish... There should be a way for the user to
>> know if it is M or Z that he gets. IMHO, the right approach would be to
>> implement proper M support in OGR Geometry classes, and that the Shapefile
>> driver uses a specific method to set M values. I see there's explicit M
>> support in the OGC OpenGIS Implementation Specification for Geographic
>> information - Simple feature access - Part 1: Common architecture
> Hi Even,
> Would be nice to have full support for XYM and XYZM geometries. I don't know
> how much work it would require. This minimalistic support for XYM geometries
> was discussed a few times in the last years and it's better than nothing IMHO.
> Talking about extending the internal OGR data model, support for multiple
> geometries in a layer would have much higher priority for me...
> Pirmin Kalberer
> Sourcepole - Linux & Open Source Solutions
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the gdal-dev