[GRASS5] GRASS development roadmap proposal

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 05:48:33PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 05:29:07PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > 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:
> [...]
> > > > > Two problems have to be addresses:
> > > > > - in a 5.0.x version we should not introduce
> > > > >   datum transformation as the results will be
> > > > >   different

That seems to be a point which should be easy to agree upon.

The reason is that the proj support would change to much
in the code.


> Sorry, should read:
> In general it's the idea that 5.0.x support hopefully can be discontinued
> in favor of the new developments.

As long as there is no established stable version it certainly cannot
be discontinued and even after this, conservative users might continue it
by themselfs.

> > Thinking more about it, renaming in a form close
> > to your proposal, might be a possible solution.
> 
> Fine, so let's continue the discussion. More comments welcome.
> 
> My goal is to get out a new release for bugfixes (5.0.3) and
> a new release containing the datum transformation and PROJ4
> improvements (5.4.0) and probably a first release of the new
> vector developments if Radim agrees.

One drawback of the renaming would be the higher communication costs
and the further delay of the 5.1.x experimental release.
Also the release with the proj improvements would be more experimental
than the 5.0.3 release, so we'd probably should to release it as 5.y
where y is an odd number.

Renaming this to 5.1.x or 5.2 would bluff people expecting
5.2.x to the be stable version with vectors. Thus we had to rename it to 5.3.x.

Subsequently current 5.1.x can only be renamed to 5.7.x.
That was just writing down a couple of reasons 
or thinking loud.

I now believe that Markus proposal is fine and will support it,
given the following remarks:

	It all only makes sense if the 5.3.x cycle is 
	compartively very short. In other project we'd wait
	until it is integrated with 5.1.x or have it as an add on
	with a big warning sign.

	Renaming 5.1/5.2 -> 5.7/5.8 has to happen early, 
			when communicating the whole plan

	It should be clarified that 5.9.x does not necessarily
	lead to 6.0.0, it can also lead to 5.10.x. :)
-------------- 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/20030717/47801140/attachment.bin