[GRASS5] v.digit color name mismatch

Tue Feb 25 02:10:10 EST 2003

Hi,

I fully support your opinion. I am a developer but also a user and I 
understand very well how important
is a stable and reliable system in critical projects. As a developer I 
am a bit uncertain if I should work on modules
for grass5.1 or grass5.0 because some of grass5.0 modules have been 
already transfered to grass5.1.
If I want to make some improvements to grass modules should I work on 
grass5.0 or grass5.1 modules? As grass5.1 is
highly experimental and in some terms inreliable, I risk, as a user, 
that  I will have to switch frequently between
grass5.0 and grass5.1. Moreover, a parallel development of identical 
modules may cause future problems
and extra work to merge all updates in grass5.2.
It is clear that at some point in the future all development works for 
grass5.0 must be stopped and all effort must be directed
to transition to grass5.2 (or grass5.1 stable). Otherwise we risk 
wasting time and effort of many people.
Perhaps a core team of grass5.1 developers should keep grass5.1 as 
minimal as possible in terms of number
of modules transferred from grass5.0 unless development of grass5.0 is 
stopped.

Jaro

cheg01 at attbi.com wrote:

>This may be a philosophic issue rather than a software issue. When I look
>at the Grass website I see the words "stable release" and "supported"
>associated with 5.0.0 and the words "highly experimental" and "use at you
>own risk" associated with 5.1.x. That is not going to encourage a quick
>transistion to the next version by the average user. My guess is that many
>users are more interested in having a stable GIS even if the functions are
>limited than having ideal functionality with unknown stability. I
>absolutely support all efforts to improve future versions of Grass, but I
>think it is a bit early to abandon efforts to clean up 5.0.0, even in areas
>where it is weak, only 5 months after it hit the streets as an official
>release. This is just my opinion. I am not a programmer, just an interested
>user. I have a hard enough time understanding the geographic part without
>using experimental software.
>
>BTW: all of the developers have done a magnificent job making GRASS what it
>is today. Thanks.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Gillette" <JGillette at rfmd.com>
>To: "Radim Blazek" <blazek at itc.it>; "Helena Mitasova"
><hmitaso at unity.ncsu.edu>; <cheg01 at attbi.com>
>Cc: <grass5 at grass.itc.it>
>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 8:00 AM
>Subject: RE: [GRASS5] v.digit color name mismatch
>
>
>This is good information to know.  I have been looking at vector
>processing modules also and have wondered if I was "wasting"
>my time by not looking at 5.1.  My concern is that what I do
>for 5.0 will change with 5.1.  These comments make it clear to me
>that I need to compile 5.1 and start looking at what's different.
>
>In particular, I have been looking in v.digit and v.build at
>topology building and checking routines to see how lower level
>routines can be used to build higher level functions.
>
>I'd also like to document what I figure out.  The programming
>manual has little information at this level of internals.
>
>It would be good if we can coordinate our work. Or at least share
>what areas we are working in. (I'm thinking specifically
>of the vector area.)
>
>John
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Helena Mitasova [mailto:hmitaso at unity.ncsu.edu]
>>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:16 AM
>>To: cheg01 at attbi.com
>>Cc: grass5 at grass.itc.it
>>Subject: Re: [GRASS5] v.digit color name mismatch
>>
>>
>>cheg01 at attbi.com wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Radim Blazek" <blazek at itc.it>
>>>To: <cheg01 at attbi.com>; <grass5 at grass.itc.it>
>>>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:53 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [GRASS5] v.digit color name mismatch
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>>I see that you are working on v.digit, I would like to only note
>>>>that work on v.digit in 5.1 was also started:
>>>>http://mpa.itc.it/radim/g51/v.digit3.png
>>>>
>>>>Radim
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I suspect that 5.0 will continue to have a large user base
>>>      
>>>
>>for some years
>>    
>>
>>>to come. Is there an expeced release date for 5.1?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Chris, if you are doing anything with vector modules I are greatly
>>encourage you to look at 5.1
>>and coordinate your work with Radim. The vector capabilities
>>in 5.0 are
>>not adequate
>>and we all need to work on getting 5.0 merged with 5.1 as soon as
>>possible so that we can have a working version
>>of GRASS5.1 with everything in it - I expect that people will
>>switch to
>>GRASS5.1 as soon as it becomes
>>usable because of its vector and database support, so I would not put
>>much effort in fixing 5.0 vector stuff.
>>This is just my view, others may see it differently.
>>
>>Helena
>>
>>    
>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>grass5 mailing list
>>>grass5 at grass.itc.it
>>>http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass5
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>grass5 mailing list
>>grass5 at grass.itc.it
>>http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass5
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>grass5 mailing list
>grass5 at grass.itc.it
>http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass5
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20030225/ef1ee112/attachment.html