[GRASSLIST:9526] Re: Rasters not displaying from old (Windows) Gr ass Projects

[Chris George]

Markus,

Thanks for your detailed responses.  I should say, first, that I am 
enormously impressed by the GRASS software and by the efforts of the 
people who continuously maintain it and provide so much help to other 
users.

What started my comments were the remarks from someone else to the 
effect that one might as well use the latest cvs version as the latest 
stable one.  I expected that a "conservative" user should be advised to 
  use the latest stable release.  Your remarks have confirmed this, thanks.

Concerning another message in this thread, no, I have no evidence that 
the CVS version contains more bugs.  I don't use the CVS version, so I 
could collect no such evidence.  But I am only talking about degrees of 
risk.  Most open-source projects adopt the same strategy of "stable" and 
"development" versions and will accept that the development one is more 
likely to contain bugs, especially if one means so far undetected ones. 
  In absolute terms it might contains less, in that a discovered bug has 
been fixed in the development version but not yet backported.  But in 
general use of the development version is more risky.

I should add that I did not intend that my remark "There is a danger 
with open source projects that the enthusiastic few, who tend to be 
radicals, dominate and undervalue the needs of the conservatives" should 
be taken as applying in a derogatory sense to GRASS.  Again, the 
evidence below suggests on the contrary that the danger is consciously 
avoided.

Thanks again to the efforts of you and the rest of the GRASS team.

Chris


Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:41:24PM +0800, Chris George wrote:
> 
>>Glynn Clements wrote:
>>
>>
>>>IMHO, the development version is no more or less likely to contain
>>>bugs than a "stable" release.
>>>
>>>It isn't as if the releases are the result of a concerted effort to
>>>fix existing bugs without introducing new ones (as is the case for
>>>some projects).
>>
>>In which case GRASS is an unusual project.
> 
> 
> That's true. It *is* unusual. But IMHO in a good sense.
> 
> 
>>I would hope that 
>>maintainers did make an effort to thoroughly test stable releases, and 
>>restrict the work to bug fixes and bringing the documentation up to date 
>>in the period leading up to such a release.
> 
> 
> I think we are exactly trying to do that. You may want to take a look
> at http://grass.itc.it/devel/grasscvscommit.php
>  -> Archive 
>     -> http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass-commit/2005-December/subject.html
>        see all changes concerning "description.html"
> 
> 
>>Then users have a choice 
>>between having something reliable and being able to try the latest 
>>enhancements.
> 
> 
> Which holds true for GRASS. Many new features of GRASS 6.1-CVS are
> not backported to GRASS 6.0.x.
> 
> 
>>>As development proceeds, old bugs get fixed and new bugs get
>>>introduced. The overall level of reliability will remain largely
>>>constant. Beyond that, newer versions will have features which older
>>>versions lacked (other than the fact that some features were removed
>>>in the 5.x -> 6.x transition).
>>
>>So why have releases like 6.0.0 or 6.0.1?  If all releases are equal in 
>>status they are all just the cvs version at a particular date.
> 
> 
> Please read the announcement:
> 
>  http://grass.itc.it/announces/announce_grass601.html
>  -> What's new in GRASS 6.0.1
> 
> (Almost) Everything is documented.
> 
> 
>>If GRASS hopes to keep a body of conservative users, whose data and time 
>>are valuable, and for whom reliability is more important than the latest 
>>enhancements, it needs to provide them with a reliable baseline system.
>>More radical users, more willing to take risks, or more interested in 
>>experimenting, or who need a new feature, can take the risks if they wish.
> 
> 
> Fully agreed. And in fact we have all versions available:
> http://grass.itc.it/download/
>  # 6.1-CVS
>  # 6.0.1  
>  # GRASS 5.7 [old] Download GRASS 5.7
>  # GRASS 5.3 [old] Download GRASS 5.3
>  # GRASS 5.0 [old] Download GRASS 5.0
>  # GRASS 4.3 [old] Download GRASS 4.3
>  # GRASS 4.2/4.2.1 [merged into 4.3, old]
>  # GRASS 4.1 [old] Download GRASS 4.1
>  # GRASS 4.0 [old] Download GRASS 4.0
> 
> I would be happy to receive also GRASS 3.0 from someone (unfortunately
> I don't have a copy) to document the code evolution.
> 
> It is left to the user to decide which version s/he uses.
> 
> 
>>Please note I am trying not to make any value judgement between my terms 
>>"conservative" and "radical".  I merely want to stress that both kinds 
>>of user exist.  (Even, at different times, within the same person.)
> 
> 
> And the development team tries to serve both groups by providing
> stable and unstable releases. But AFAIK there is no software, even
> when it is called "stable" that is bug free. Since GRASS is modular,
> it's unlikely that the entire system is non-functional. But maybe
> a certain functionality does not work as expected. In this case the
> users are requested to report.
> 
> If you (would have) look(ed) into the CVS commit archive or the
> ChangeLog files, you can find lots of "merged from head" comments:
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?q=merge+from+head&as_sitesearch=grass.itc.it
> -> 318 hits
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?q=merged+from+head&as_sitesearch=grass.itc.it
> -> 110 hits
> 
> All those are backports from the development version into the stable
> version, to fix later known bugs. Subsequently .x releases are published
> (6.0.2 for example in the near future).
> 
> 
>>I also think, if GRASS is (or is to be) successful the conservative group 
>>will be much the larger.  There is a danger with open source projects 
>>that the enthusiastic few, who tend to be radicals, dominate and 
>>undervalue the needs of the conservatives.
>>
>>Chris
> 
> 
> This is your opinion.
> 
> Markus
>