[GRASS5] Re: i.ortho.photo - XDRIVER bug detected

Bernhard Reiter bernhard at intevation.de
Tue May 23 05:50:27 EDT 2000

On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 09:08:39AM +0200, Michel Wurtz - ENGEES/CEREG wrote:
> Rich Shepard wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 22 May 2000, Andreas Lange wrote:
> > 
> > > If there is no one using xgrass and no one wants to work with this code,
> > > Markus could delete it in the CVS (and possibly make a tarball from the
> > > last version for download on the ftp server). This will save some space in
> > > the next source distribution.
> > 
> >   I never have quite understood what xgrass gives me, so I have not used it.
> > Again, thinking ahead, this looks like a good candidate for ending, too.
> I agree... Another idea is to take the opposite way : what are the
> Grass functions _really_ used ?  As we are thinking about a 5.1 "stable"
> version, it could be interesting to add only those ones...

I still vote to make 5.0.x the stable tree numbers.
So Markus, my suggestion is that you create a branch on the whole source
tree for the stable version according to the CVS book.

So every developer should be aware of the two retrieving tags.
The development branch should be the head or default branch.
New features and massive code moving/deleting should be done in the
development branch then and people who know that they are doing minor
bugfixes should use the stable branche first.

> AFAIK, there is no stats about grass functions usage. Since all
> functions are run via a single launcher program (linked to all
> function names), this one can be modified to create a stat log file
> that can be further exploited (perl script) to send the stats to 
> some repository site... that can also be a way to know how many peoples
> are actually using Grass.

You are getting a double *ouch* from me.
The first is because I think perl is overly difficult as a scripting
languange, but that is minor. I guess that most people will dislike the
idea to have stats send to some repository site from their computer.
So we should not add that feature.

Otherwise stats are good and it is alsways nice too keep them.
I do not think that we really can construct a good system of GRASS
function calls just by looking at their stats, though.

> Does anybody have some idea of that number ?

Professional Service around Free Software                (intevation.net)  
The FreeGIS Project				            (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure            (ffii.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 236 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20000523/bec8b85d/attachment.bin

More information about the grass-dev mailing list