[PROJ] Motion: approve RFC3 update, and bump to C++17 for PROJ 9.6

[Kristian Evers]

I think we can do a little bit of fine-tuning. I’ve added an extra commit to the branch with my additions:

https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/pull/4369/commits/8f045bac73d2823d1d3ee17b3537b5d58d902995

I’ve clarified that a change in version requirements needs to be communicated clearly and removed a line
about changing versions of programming languages that contradicts the reason why we are updating this RFC
In the first place.

With those details added I am +1 as well.

/Kristian

> On 7 Jan 2025, at 04.48, Even Rouault via PROJ <proj at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 07/01/2025 à 04:37, Alan Snow a écrit :
>> At first glance, it seems reasonable. Though I have a couple of questions for clarification.
>> 
>> Would it make sense to word the RFC so we prefer making dependency changes on major releases, but exceptions can be made? For example, if the dependency charge can be classified as a minor change and will cause minimal disruptions, then an exception can be made.
>> 
>> What were the reasons for originally wanting to only apply dependency updates for major releases? How do we plan to ensure the original reasons are not overlooked for minor releases?
> 
> IMHO spending more time fine-tuning RFC-3 is not worth it. Our usual communication mechanisms, pull requests or messages on this list, and seeking for enough consensus, and making a motion if needed, are enough to handle those situations.
> 
> -- 
> http://www.spatialys.com
> My software is free, but my time generally not.
> Butcher of all kinds of standards, open or closed formats. At the end, this is just about bytes.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PROJ mailing list
> PROJ at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20250107/19085f62/attachment-0001.htm>