[mapserver-dev] Show of hands for 6.4 Release

[thomas bonfort]

Steve,
I'd be more comfortable with a 6.4 release as it stands now, i.e. with a
low risk of backwards incompatibility, in order to be sure to push out
something stable sooner rather than later. We could aim for a 7.0 with
rfc91, utfgrids, harfbuzz and Daniel's symbology changes after that, as all
of those are more involved.
Concerning rfc91, can updated drivers live alongside others that haven't
yet been modified? Can you publish a branch with the current state?

cheers,
thomas


On 16 May 2013 18:34, Lime, Steve D (MNIT) <Steve.Lime at state.mn.us> wrote:

>  If RFC91 is included I’d prefer late July for a feature freeze. I do
> have some code for shapefiles and PostGIS working and it should be
> backwards compatible. However it could be prone to more bugs than we might
> like in a mid-version release.  Other than that I’m +1 on targeting early
> September and +1 on Thomas as the release manager.****
>
> ** **
>
> Steve****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:
> mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *thomas bonfort
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:33 AM
>
> *To:* MapServer Dev Mailing List
> *Subject:* [mapserver-dev] Show of hands for 6.4 Release****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Devs,****
>
> ** **
>
> Foss4g is approaching and I think we should have released 6.4 by then, so
> I'd like to start a bit of planning. My impression is that for the time
> being we have quite a few new functionalities, but a low risk of backwards
> incompatibilities/issues, which should make for a short release phase.****
>
> ** **
>
> I would like to propose a feature freeze and 6.4 branching around mid/end
> july, for a targeted release around beginning of september ?****
>
> +1****
>
> ** **
>
> Unless someone else wants to assume the role, I volunteer to be release
> manager again, under the assumption that beta releases happen "when they
> are ready" rather than on a fixed weekly schedule.****
>
> +1****
>
> ** **
>
> Alan: what's the status of RFC89 in relation to RFC94 ?****
>
> Steve: RFC91 is longer term, correct ?****
>
> ** **
>
> Which brings me to my second point relating to longer term features, in my
> following email.****
>
> ** **
>
> regards,****
>
> Thomas****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-dev/attachments/20130517/219ae1b2/attachment-0001.html>