[GRASS5] GRASS development roadmap proposal

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 05:08:31PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:36:01PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

> > Certainly we should have 5.0.3 as bug-fix releases.
> > We might also have further 5.0.x releases which IMO 
> > should also be bug fix releases.
> 
> This is what I tried to propose.

Yes, I know. That was just agreement. :)

> > > Two problems have to be addresses:
> > > - in a 5.0.x version we should not introduce
> > >   datum transformation as the results will be
> > >   different
> > 
> > I did not follow the datum discussions in detail.
> > What do you mean with: The results will be different?
> 
> We should not have 5.0.2 without datum transformation and
> 5.0.3 with datum transformation as the same commands (*.proj)
> will end with different results. This means that the maps
> are shifted up to some hundred meters. Subversions must
> behave the same.

Why would the maps be shifted in particular?
Is it a systematic error in all versions?
Or an additonal feature.
If it is an error, when was it introduced?

> > > - we should release datum transformation as soon as
> > >   possible as it is crucial for GIS data processing.
> > 
> > Another idea would be to make in an experiemental add-on package
> > to 5.0.x if the datum transformation support is ready for this.
> 
> Yes, but with a different version name. Otherwise there will be
> too much confusion in the user community ("why is my map
> shifted...").
>  
> > It is clear that the 5.0.x serious has to transform into the
> > 5.1.x serious which then transforms into 5.2.x at some point
> > where 5.0.x support hopefully can be discontinued.
> 
> In general that the idea.

? 

> > The renaming part (5.0 HEAD -> 5.3.0 and 5.1.0 -> 5.7.0) suggested
> > will cause confusion. I advise against it.
> 
> So please make a better proposal.

Need to know more about the datum transformation situation
before I can suggest something reasonable.

Thinking more about it, renaming in a form close
to your proposal, might be a possible solution.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20030717/4939f1f6/attachment.bin