[GRASS-dev] svn access

[Hamish]

Radim wrote:
> OK, patch attached, fix for QGIS crash.

thanks,

> I know, I should create a new ticket and then make a
> comment with the patch attached, right?

Right, as it's the only sane way to deal with the extreme information
overload to people-power ratio without sucking up all of our free time.
Also it gives the patch some air and makes it easy to help teach the
rest of us not to make the same mistakes again. FWIW I was a bit skeptical
about doing everything in trac to begin with but have really come around
to appreciate its usefulness. The grand idea is to minimize overheads...


e.g. Is there a qgis ticket for this? ie how to trigger the crash and
why does it happen? is it only vs. grass-trunk? i.e. how can I test
the patch & know if it needs backporting/expanding/whatever?

should the real fix be "alloc += GMAPSET_MAX"?

or to modify/fix the header comments to say that the pointer will
be null if the location dir can't be opened or no mapsets are found?
(and then submit a patch to qgis)
[now: "\return pointer to zero terminated array of available mapsets."]

and was the final null termination missing?; which, if so, would need
to be backported to 6.4/6.5 as well?

... I'm just trying to understand it, and honestly the trac stuff really
does help with that because it helps focus the issue + automatic URLs ..


Hamish wrote:
> > a post to the grass-psc list w.r.t. RFC2 is needed, 
....
> > (we all had to do it; you are already listed in
> > trunk/contributors.csv as a committer for whatever that means)

in hindsight & looking at rfc1 again, it means that you were already
"voted in" for write-access long ago under the mechanism of the day,
so you are not a new devel and there is no need for all that; all that
is needed for activation is a post to the psc list saying you agree
with rfc2 (same as other cvs-converted devels had to).
This formality was the "cost" we paid to join with OSGeo. It is the terms
of legal incorporation in most places that state that these (often
redundant) procedures have to be in place, ie why we had to bother with
the RFCs at all.


regards,
Hamish