lr at pcorp.us
Fri Sep 9 12:05:34 PDT 2011
I vote -0.5, and, yes Bborie of course your vote counts.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
> [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On
> Behalf Of dustymugs
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 2:07 PM
> To: PostGIS Development Discussion
> Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] liblwgeom.so
> I'd have to vote -1.
> I think the change made is significant (like re-arranging a
> person's internal organs) and should have been done in spike
> instead of trunk until the PSC is comfortable merging it into trunk.
> The reason I'm against this change for PostGIS 2.0 (besides
> being a conservative fellow) is that the other significant
> additions to PostGIS prior to this change (enabling of
> gserialized and to a lesser extent raster, geocoder and
> topology) still needs testing and benchmarking.
> On 09/09/2011 10:58 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> > If you think it's dandy, tell us why! :) P.
> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM,
> dustymugs<dustymugs at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> If I were asked to vote on it, I'd be -0. There are lots
> of things I
> >>> hate about the code base now, I can hate one more, if
> everyone else
> >>> thinks it's a dandy idea I won't veto, I have no monopoly on the
> >>> truth, but I'd like us to actually poll the group and hear who
> >>> *does* think it's a dandy idea and why.
> >> Paul,
> >> When you say "group", are you talking about PSC or all the
> >> -bborie
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
More information about the postgis-devel