nviz_cmd - was Re: [GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #392: backport G_is_c_null_value() to devbr6

[Paul Kelly]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Martin Landa wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2008/12/19 Markus Neteler <neteler at osgeo.org>:
>>>>>>>> Call it nviz2?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nviz -> TCL/TK GUI
>>>>>>> nviz2 -> cmd line based module
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> seems to be confusing for me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I vote for d.3d.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or we can leave it as nviz_cmd and go ahead to 6.4.0RC1...
>>>>>
>>>>> considering d.nviz which should be also renamed (in 7.0)
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.4
>>>>>
>>>>> d.nviz
>>>>> nviz_cmd -> d.3d
>>>>>
>>>>> 7.0
>>>>>
>>>>> d.nviz -> d.3d.fly
>>>>> nviz_cmd -> d.3d
>>>>
>>>> This is a good compromise for me.
>>>
>>> I don't like last minute changes so I think it is fine too. Not sure if
>>> d.nviz is present in 6.4? But that's irrelevant at this point.
>>
>> Sure it is there:
>> [neteler at markus grass64]$ ls display/d.nviz/
>> description.html  local.h  main.c  Makefile

Ah I thought it was a script. No wonder I couldn't find it.

> well, after some discussion with Markus I would suggest creating new
> group of modules
>
> nviz
>
> in GRASS6:
>
> nviz_cmd becomes nviz.cmd

Well as I said above I feel it is a bad idea to make any last minute 
changes now if we're intending to tag 6.4.0RC1 imminently, so I'd vote for 
keeping everything as-is for 6.4 now.

> in GRASS7:
>
> nviz_cmd becomes nviz.cmd
> d.nviz becomes nviz.fly

My comments before about the name nviz being inherently meaningless still 
stand here. Yes it's instantly recognisable to GRASS users as the 3-D 
visualisation command, similarly to r.in.gdal being instantly recognisable 
as an import command. But the reasons Markus gave for renaming r.in.gdal 
to r.import (which I eventually came round to agreeing with) stand here 
also for renaming nviz_cmd to something more meaningful. I think we need 
to sit back and look at the functionality and the GUI integration and come 
up with a nice meaningful name for 7.x.

>>> Are we ready to go with the tagging 6.4.0RC1 then? A new branch isn't
>>> absolutely necessary at the minute - but as I see it there's no reason not
>>> to do it now either if it's not too much extra work.
>>
>> I think that a branch is commonly done in the GRASS
>> project, so we should continue. And with SVN merging
>> is easier (and G7 moves away so that at least I rarely
>> backport things).

Yes - I mean if a branch is not created now it would be in the next week 
or two. It just might save some merging work not to create it until it is 
really needed. But there is no harm in creating it now.

Paul