[GRASS-dev] Planning GRASS GIS 7.0.0RC1

[Yann Chemin]

In view of Markus M explanation, +1 for RC2 today rather than tomorrow.

On 16 January 2015 at 20:31, Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Moritz Lennert
> <mlennert at club.worldonline.be> wrote:
> > On 16/01/15 12:15, Martin Landa wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> 2015-01-16 12:13 GMT+01:00 Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> Can we please get RC2 out soon? In the last days I have fixed numerous
> >>> bugs in the vector library and changed/restored the basic vector IO
> >>> interface, it is now more similar to G6 and it needed some code clean
> >>> up.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for all this work ! Could you explain a bit more on what types of
> > bugs this fixed ?
>
> The first set of bugs was related to vector topology.
>
> Bug 1 affected point-in-polygon tests, a basic geometry function. The
> affected functions were Vect_point_in_area(),
> Vect_point_in_area_outer_ring() and Vect_point_in_island() which
> returned sometimes the wrong result (point outside instead of inside
> or vice versa). This in turn affected the functions
> Vect_attach_centroids(), Vect_attach_isle() and Vect_attach_isles()
> which are needed to update topology when boundaries are added, deleted
> or modified.
>
> Bug 2 was in Vect_attach_centroids() andVect_attach_isles(). Centroids
> and isles were not properly reattached when boundaries are added,
> deleted or modified. These bugs still need to be fixed in G6.
>
> Bugs 1 + 2 meant that (re)attaching centroids and isles during vector
> modification was not working well, a fairly important feature for
> modifying vector topology.
>
> The modifications related to basic vector IO fixed some bugs
> introduced in G7. Some functions were only working with topology, even
> though equivalent functions not requiring topology are available. A
> newly introduced test prevented access to the non-topological
> variants. Further on, some function definitions were changed such that
> new arguments were introduced that were not used/not needed. I have
> syncronized the IO interface and updated the documentation. It is now
> more similar to G6 and some functions have become non-topological
> equivalents (interesting for large point clouds).
>
> >
> >>
> >> I agree, but would suggest to wait at least one/two week(s), probably
> >> more bugfixes will be collected.
> >>
> >
> > As these seem to be modifications in fundamental library functions, I
> would
> > plead for getting RC2 out more quickly than foreseen, i.e. I'd plead for
> 1
> > week, not 2. That way these modifications will get a bit more testing
> before
> > the final release.
>
> I would plead for 1 day rather than 1 week.
>
> >
> > This is one example of why the proposed release procedure [1] contains
> this:
> >
> > "Any backports during the soft freeze should be announced on the
> developers
> > mailing list with 24 hours advance to allow possible discussion."
> >
> > Maybe this should be extended to "Any backports or extensive bug fixes
> > during..." ?
> >
> > If these changes had been announced, we could have delayed RC1 for a few
> > days...
>
> I discovered the bugs only in the last days and tried to get them
> fixed as soon as possible, but some of the bugs were rather obscure
> and I had no idea how quickly I would be able to find their reason and
> fix them. The fixes are all thoroughly tested (I guess I have never
> before tested vector topology so thoroughly...).
>
> Markus M
>
> >
> > Moritz
> >
> > [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure
> _______________________________________________
> grass-dev mailing list
> grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
>



-- 
----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20150116/9244e399/attachment.html>