[postgis-devel] Any chance we can get a 1.3.6 RC1 out this week

[Paragon Corporation]

Kevin,
Me too.  We've made a lot of changes since then and would like to see how
badly we've screwed up the documentation.

Thanks,
Regina 

-----Original Message-----
From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
[mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Kevin
Neufeld
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:21 PM
To: PostGIS Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] Any chance we can get a 1.3.6 RC1 out this week

It looks like I have some time to recreate Hudson, the auto buildbot we had
working last month before our server went belly up.

I miss having the documentation and tarball constantly up-to-date on the
main website, so I'm on that now ... unless Paul, you wanted to take that
over ...

-- Kevin

Paul Ramsey wrote:
> (And I really tried to do this more mechanically, following the 'how 
> to release', which will be my goal going forward, so mistakes in this 
> tarball can be used to fix the automated parts of how to release, and 
> hopefully automate it more.)
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey at opengeo.org> wrote:
>> I've wrapped an 'rc1' and placed it here:
>>
>> http://postgis.refractions.net/download/postgis-1.3.6rc1.tar.gz
>>
>> Please test it a bit and then we'll announce to the wider audience.
>>
>> P
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Paragon Corporation <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:
>>> I've been testing under Windows 2003 and seems okay - comparing some 
>>> stress tests between 1.3.5 and 1.3.6 (though was using GEOS 3.1.0 -- 
>>> still need to test with 3.0.3.
>>>
>>> My tests on 8.4 beta 1 under windows I think I'm seeing some 
>>> discrepancies between ST_Within behavior, but could be my diffing is 
>>> out of wack  and haven't determined if its an issue with 1.3.6 or 
>>> 1.4.0.  I had installed both under the same 8.4 beta 1 install in 
>>> separate more or less identical databases.  Still yet to test on Linux.
>>>
>>> It would really help if we have an up to date tar ball for both at 
>>> the very least.
>>>
>>> The Union behavior between the 1.3.6 and 1.4.0 is very different, 
>>> but I think that is expected and under an OpenJump microscope the 
>>> results at least have the same number of points and look visually the
same.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Regina
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> postgis-devel mailing list
>>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
_______________________________________________
postgis-devel mailing list
postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel