[Proj] Time for a new release?

[Howard Butler]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Kristian Evers <kreve at sdfe.dk> wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> I think the current development cycle is coming to an end and a new release
> should be made. It’s been more than a year since that least release of
> PROJ.4. In that period of time the library has improved significantly, most
> notably by the introduction of a new and more consistent API, transformation
> pipelines and the cct 4D transformation CLI utility. The new additions have
> already seen a fair amount of testing and are now at a point where I believe
> they are stable enough to be released to the public. I would like to propose
> that we release the next version of PROJ.4 on December 15. This gives
> roughly a month to take care of the last few kinks that need to be ironed
> out. It also gives users of the library amble time to test the developing
> version in the setups and report any issues that have appeared since the
> last release. With a release mid-december we should aim for a release
> candidate in the start of December.
>
>
>
> I hope we all agree that the time has come to get a new release out there.
> Please voice your opinions on this matter.
>
>
>
> Howard, I guess you will be doing some/most of the heavy lifting with
> preparing the actual release, so please feel free to propose another time if
> this doesn’t fit your schedule.

I agree we need a release, but I think the window is too short and we
need a release candidate loop in there too. Let's have RC1 happen
December 15th, with the expectation that it would go final in January
or February as everyone catches up to testing it.

While we're on the topic, I must say the amount of work you and Thomas
have put into the library is incredible. The OSS Fuzz stuff along with
all of your other refactoring effort is going to give proj another
generation or two of life :)

When I was pushing back on the naming incrementing earlier, I hadn't
realized how much of an overhaul would take place. We're clearly in
"new major version" territory here, and I agree the effort deserves to
be called PROJ 5.0.0. This will also help with marketing the new
features as something distinct. It will give the laggards opportunity
to stick with their old version too.

If we were to do so, it would bring up some small issues:

* Rebranding in general (the website -> proj5.org, package names, etc)
* Backporting of OSS Fuzz issues to 4.9/4.10

Howard