[postgis-devel] Geom/Geog Hack Plan

[nicklas.aven at jordogskog.no]

Just a question for my understanding. 
What's the argument against a special prefix in function-name for those functions.
If the argument is that we then can implement the "real" function in a micro-release, I don't think it is a good argument.
Exchanging the hacked version with the real will cause a changed behavior of the function and is probably not what users expect from a micro-release, from the policy not to change functionality in micro-releases.
 
/Nicklas
 

2009-11-03 Paragon Corporation wrote:

Paul and Kevin,
>
>I'm in agreement with Mark too. I suppose one or 2 of these functions is
>not going to pollute our 1.5 that much.
>
>So how about this as a plan:
>
>Paul picks 1 or 2 more of these kind of functions. Note we already have
>buffer -- which is now documented. Though not sure if the documentation is
>clear enough -
>http://www.postgis.org/documentation/manual-svn/ST_Buffer.html (and I think
>we need to revise our documentation template yet again -- though I'll put
>that in a separate note).
>
>The rest of the functions get put in a wiki page and prominently linked from
>the documentation
>
>
> in geography index
>http://www.postgis.org/documentation/manual-svn/ch08.html#PostGIS_GeographyF
>unctions
>
>as well as geography description page
>
> for easy access
>http://www.postgis.org/documentation/manual-svn/ch04.html#PostGIS_Geography
>
>Is everyone okay with that plan?
>
>Thanks,
>Regina
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>postgis-devel mailing list
>postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20091103/cd4bbd8b/attachment.html>