[geomoose-psc] Pull Request Review Request!

[TC Haddad]

👍

TC Haddad reacted via Gmail
<https://www.google.com/gmail/about/?utm_source=gmail-in-product&utm_medium=et&utm_campaign=emojireactionemail#app>

On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 1:26 PM Christopher Hughes <chughes at co.lincoln.or.us>
wrote:

> I'll be out of town Friday so won't be able to attend the PSC meeting, but
> I've added feedback on most of the PRs.
>
> --
> Chris Hughes
>
> GIS Analyst
> Lincoln County GIS Department
> 880 NE 7th St. l Newport, OR 97365
> Tel: (541) 574 1283
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* geomoose-psc <geomoose-psc-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of
> TC Haddad via geomoose-psc <geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2026 12:07 PM
> *To:* Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org <geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [geomoose-psc] Pull Request Review Request!
>
>
> We have a PSC meeting Friday, so maybe Jim’s email can serve as a nudge to
> everyone to take a look at these and either provide feedback ahead of or in
> time for Friday’s meeting…
>
> best,
> Tanya
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 12:04 PM Jim Klassen via geomoose-psc <
> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
> I was (finally) able to get through these.   I've added a couple of
> comments, and it looks like others have some unanswered comments too.
> Generally, I like where these PRs are going, and I'd like to get these
> merged before they stack up so deep that we've effectively forked our own
> project, but I am looking for some consensus from the PSC before I do so.
>
> On 8/2/26 11:54 AM, Dan Little via geomoose-psc wrote:
> > Hi Folks!
> >
> > I've got a few pull requests that have had some good work put into them,
> I think are good enhancements, and were also sponsored work. I'd love to
> get them reviewed, merged, and released.
> >
> > This is a "stack" of PRs that would add back the feature report:
> >
> > - https://github.com/geomoose/gm3/pull/999 : Restores the "print to
> scale" functionality. I've updated this with the curated list from the PSC
> suggestions.
> > - https://github.com/geomoose/gm3/pull/1000 : This is marked as merging
> into 999 because it made testing of the tick lines a bit easier. This
> cleans up the PDF scale line to match the updated scale line on the map. I
> feel this one is an easy one to review.
> > - https://github.com/geomoose/gm3/pull/1013 : Last but not least, the
> return of the feature report! This adds a sample feature report and layout
> to the parcels layer along with all the appropriate docs.
> >
> > After some feedback from folks (DM/emails) I did take the time to
> "promote" the basemap toggle to a mainline component. I think the
> "experiemental" status made it scary and left us not testing it (which is
> why we needed a react 18 fix for it in the first place):
> > - https://github.com/geomoose/gm3/pull/1015
> >
> > Last but not least I've drafted a first AI/LLM policy here:
> > - https://github.com/geomoose/gm3/pull/1016
> >
> > Thanks y'all!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > geomoose-psc mailing list
> > geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
>
> _______________________________________________
> geomoose-psc mailing list
> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/vnd.google.email-reaction+json
Size: 37 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-psc/attachments/20260817/d461d0bd/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-psc/attachments/20260817/d461d0bd/attachment-0001.htm>