[GRASS-dev] Re: grass-dev Digest, Vol 32, Issue 28

[Michael Barton]

On Dec 14, 2008, at 9:10 PM, <grass-dev-request at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:39:22 +0000
> From: Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>
> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Re: GRASS Version for Release
> To: "Markus Neteler" <neteler at osgeo.org>
> Cc: GRASS developers list <grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> Message-ID: <18757.57210.815419.442702 at cerise.gclements.plus.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> Markus Neteler wrote:
>
>>> today or in the next few days
>>>
>>> see
>>> http://grass.osgeo.org/wiki/GRASS_6.4_Feature_Plan#RC1
>>
>> "Only" 6 blocker/critical bugs are left:
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&priority=blocker&priority=critical&milestone=6.4.0&milestone=6.3.1&type=defect&order=priority
>>
>> Are they are really critical bugs which block RC1?

I'm almost at a point where I can do some work on the wxGUI again, but  
it will be too late to get 6.4 RC1 out fast.

>>
>
> Don't count on #58 or #72 being fixed any time soon. The same might
> be said for #384, depending upon what's actually causing it.

For #58 and #384, we just need to say that the wxGUI is still in  
development (it is). This is especially true for v.digit and NVIZ,  
though both are well along.

For #295, the region is not really "corrupted". g.region should be  
used for precise setting of extents and resolution of the  
computational region, not the interactive display canvas. Zooming the  
display (approximately) to the computational region is a convenience  
option that is indeed very handy, but not precise. Setting the  
computational region from the display is precise I believe (that is,  
the computational extents match the display extents), but is still a  
convenience rather than designed to be a precision control (that is,  
the extents match within the limits of the display and computational  
region resolutions).

Michael

>
>
> Is #73 actually a bug, or simply noting that programs which claim to
> support "TIFF" invariably only support a (usually unspecified) subset
> of the TIFF standard?
>
> In any case, I think that you're going to have to consider anything
> relating to wxGUI to not be a blocker if you want a 6.4.0 release
> sooner rather than later.

This leaves only #198

Michael