[OpenLayers-Dev] Motion: 2.5 Final Release

[Cameron Shorter]

+1

Erik Uzureau wrote:
> +1 euzuró
>
> On 10/8/07, Paul Spencer <pspencer at dmsolutions.ca> wrote:
>   
>> +1 Paul
>>
>> On 7-Oct-07, at 10:24 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> There have been no new regressions reported in the OpenLayers 2.5
>>> release in the time since the release of RC5.
>>>
>>> There is currently one outstanding issue that Tim had marked for
>>> 2.5 --
>>> an improvement to GeometryCollection handling in GeoJSON parsing --
>>> but
>>> it isn't a regression, and the use case where it actually affects
>>> people
>>> is very small. I'm of the opinion that since the GeoJSON spec is
>>> not yet
>>> 'done' -- there still could be more changes to it -- we shouldn't hold
>>> the release for another edge case lack of support: instead, if we
>>> really
>>> do want this into something we call 2.5, I'd be in favor of pulling it
>>> back and doing a 2.5.1 when the spec is complete. (See
>>> http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1067 -- this lack of funtionality
>>> only
>>> affects the case where a feature is passed with a
>>> GeometryCollection as
>>> the geometry.)
>>>
>>> With that being the only outstanding issue, I'd like to motion that we
>>> release OpenLayers 2.5 on Tuesday afternoon eastern time -- in
>>> about 40
>>> hours -- unless we hear anything new in terms of bug reports in the
>>> meantime. This release would not include the fix for #1067. (If the
>>> PSC
>>> hasn't voted by that time, I propose that the release be made as
>>> soon as
>>> the PSC has voted.)
>>>
>>> I'm +1 on doing this, and will do the release engineering work if
>>> there
>>> are votes against releasing.
>>>
>>> Additionally, I'd like to  put #1067 in trunk, and after the GeoJSON
>>> specification has been finalized, we pull any changes to the GeoJSON
>>> format back into a 2.5.1 after sufficient testing. The change that
>>> we're
>>> looking at is, imho, too risky to put into a 2.5 release this late in
>>> the game -- I screwed that up once already ;) (Hence the RC5
>>> instead of
>>> RC4.) I'm interested in what the developer community thinks about
>>> doing
>>> this specifically to support full GeoJSON.
>>>
>>> The biggest reason for supporting the GeoJSON spec so strongly is that
>>> it is a format that we can round trip effectively, unlike many other
>>> formats. The simple feature model and limited geometry model allow
>>> us to
>>> fully support GeoJSON input/output in OpenLayers, and that's important
>>> for people to be able to have/understand.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to feedback on either of these two items, and would
>>> like
>>> to get the PSC to vote on the 2.5 release when they get a chance.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Christopher Schmidt
>>> MetaCarta
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev mailing list
>>> Dev at openlayers.org
>>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>       
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>> |Paul Spencer                          pspencer at dmsolutions.ca    |
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>> |Chief Technology Officer                                         |
>> |DM Solutions Group Inc                http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ |
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> Dev at openlayers.org
>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at openlayers.org
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>   


-- 
Cameron Shorter
Systems Architect, http://lisasoft.com.au
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254