[gdal-dev] GDAL/OGR 1.11.0 Release Candidate 1 available for testing

[Daniel Morissette]

On 14-04-17 9:01 AM, Even Rouault wrote:
>
> The problem is that at some point we must take a snapshot and say "hey, this is
> GDAL 1.11, the latest and greatest, use it please". I think it is OK if new
> drivers are still a bit experimental.
>
> Reviewing the commit, I think that it has at least one issue because
> SetSpatialFilter() will segfault in switch( poGeomIn->getGeometryType() ) if
> passed a NULL geometry, which is perfectly legal, in order to uninstall a
> spatial filter.
> Did you test the driver with the test_ogrsf utility ? (cd apps; make test_ogrsf)
>

Note to all committers in support of Even attempting to produce a 
release (not pointing at Wolf specifically even if that's the way this 
may sound):

This example (introducing a potential seg fault at the last minute) is 
exactly the reason why we usually have a "feature freeze" period before 
releasing software and only really critical *fixes* should be allowed 
during the feature freeze period, and these fixes should have been 
properly tested.

This is also the reason why in projects such as MapServer the appointed 
release manager for a given release has unilateral power to revert any 
changes that he/she considers has a risk to the stability of the release 
or its schedule, even if that means releasing with documented known 
bugs. (i.e. sometimes it is safer to release with a known bug than to 
introduce a non trivial fix that comes with a higher risk to the 
stability of the software and could delay the release)

The alternative if we don't do that is that releases take forever 
because there will always be someone who has a last minute fix to commit 
(with the associated risk of introducing new bugs at the same time if 
they are not well tested straightforward fixes). Then we get into a 
spiraling effect of fixes introducing bugs, whose fixes introduce bugs, 
and so on, hopefully you get the idea.

Sorry for the rant, we've gone through that exercise for MapServer 
several years ago and that has helped a lot, so I'd be in favor of more 
rigid release rules for GDAL as well.

For reference, MapServer RFC34 documents the release process:
http://msgsoc.mapgears.com/html/en/development/rfc/ms-rfc-34.html

Daniel
-- 
Daniel Morissette
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
http://www.mapgears.com/
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000