Motion: 2.5 Final Release

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Motion: 2.5 Final Release

Christopher Schmidt-2
There have been no new regressions reported in the OpenLayers 2.5
release in the time since the release of RC5.

There is currently one outstanding issue that Tim had marked for 2.5 --
an improvement to GeometryCollection handling in GeoJSON parsing -- but
it isn't a regression, and the use case where it actually affects people
is very small. I'm of the opinion that since the GeoJSON spec is not yet
'done' -- there still could be more changes to it -- we shouldn't hold
the release for another edge case lack of support: instead, if we really
do want this into something we call 2.5, I'd be in favor of pulling it
back and doing a 2.5.1 when the spec is complete. (See
http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1067 -- this lack of funtionality only
affects the case where a feature is passed with a GeometryCollection as
the geometry.)

With that being the only outstanding issue, I'd like to motion that we
release OpenLayers 2.5 on Tuesday afternoon eastern time -- in about 40
hours -- unless we hear anything new in terms of bug reports in the
meantime. This release would not include the fix for #1067. (If the PSC
hasn't voted by that time, I propose that the release be made as soon as
the PSC has voted.)

I'm +1 on doing this, and will do the release engineering work if there
are votes against releasing.

Additionally, I'd like to  put #1067 in trunk, and after the GeoJSON
specification has been finalized, we pull any changes to the GeoJSON
format back into a 2.5.1 after sufficient testing. The change that we're
looking at is, imho, too risky to put into a 2.5 release this late in
the game -- I screwed that up once already ;) (Hence the RC5 instead of
RC4.) I'm interested in what the developer community thinks about doing
this specifically to support full GeoJSON.

The biggest reason for supporting the GeoJSON spec so strongly is that
it is a format that we can round trip effectively, unlike many other
formats. The simple feature model and limited geometry model allow us to
fully support GeoJSON input/output in OpenLayers, and that's important
for people to be able to have/understand.

Looking forward to feedback on either of these two items, and would like
to get the PSC to vote on the 2.5 release when they get a chance.

Regards,
--
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: 2.5 Final Release

John Cole X
+1  All the stuff I want is in 2.6 :-) The sooner 2.5 is cooked, the sooner
2.6 gets going!

John

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Christopher Schmidt
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 9:25 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [OpenLayers-Dev] Motion: 2.5 Final Release

There have been no new regressions reported in the OpenLayers 2.5
release in the time since the release of RC5.

There is currently one outstanding issue that Tim had marked for 2.5 --
an improvement to GeometryCollection handling in GeoJSON parsing -- but
it isn't a regression, and the use case where it actually affects people
is very small. I'm of the opinion that since the GeoJSON spec is not yet
'done' -- there still could be more changes to it -- we shouldn't hold
the release for another edge case lack of support: instead, if we really
do want this into something we call 2.5, I'd be in favor of pulling it
back and doing a 2.5.1 when the spec is complete. (See
http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1067 -- this lack of funtionality only
affects the case where a feature is passed with a GeometryCollection as
the geometry.)

With that being the only outstanding issue, I'd like to motion that we
release OpenLayers 2.5 on Tuesday afternoon eastern time -- in about 40
hours -- unless we hear anything new in terms of bug reports in the
meantime. This release would not include the fix for #1067. (If the PSC
hasn't voted by that time, I propose that the release be made as soon as
the PSC has voted.)

I'm +1 on doing this, and will do the release engineering work if there
are votes against releasing.

Additionally, I'd like to  put #1067 in trunk, and after the GeoJSON
specification has been finalized, we pull any changes to the GeoJSON
format back into a 2.5.1 after sufficient testing. The change that we're
looking at is, imho, too risky to put into a 2.5 release this late in
the game -- I screwed that up once already ;) (Hence the RC5 instead of
RC4.) I'm interested in what the developer community thinks about doing
this specifically to support full GeoJSON.

The biggest reason for supporting the GeoJSON spec so strongly is that
it is a format that we can round trip effectively, unlike many other
formats. The simple feature model and limited geometry model allow us to
fully support GeoJSON input/output in OpenLayers, and that's important
for people to be able to have/understand.

Looking forward to feedback on either of these two items, and would like
to get the PSC to vote on the 2.5 release when they get a chance.

Regards,
--
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1055 - Release Date: 10/7/2007
10:24 AM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1057 - Release Date: 10/8/2007
9:04 AM
 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: 2.5 Final Release

Paul Spencer-2
In reply to this post by Christopher Schmidt-2
+1 Paul

On 7-Oct-07, at 10:24 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:

> There have been no new regressions reported in the OpenLayers 2.5
> release in the time since the release of RC5.
>
> There is currently one outstanding issue that Tim had marked for  
> 2.5 --
> an improvement to GeometryCollection handling in GeoJSON parsing --  
> but
> it isn't a regression, and the use case where it actually affects  
> people
> is very small. I'm of the opinion that since the GeoJSON spec is  
> not yet
> 'done' -- there still could be more changes to it -- we shouldn't hold
> the release for another edge case lack of support: instead, if we  
> really
> do want this into something we call 2.5, I'd be in favor of pulling it
> back and doing a 2.5.1 when the spec is complete. (See
> http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1067 -- this lack of funtionality  
> only
> affects the case where a feature is passed with a  
> GeometryCollection as
> the geometry.)
>
> With that being the only outstanding issue, I'd like to motion that we
> release OpenLayers 2.5 on Tuesday afternoon eastern time -- in  
> about 40
> hours -- unless we hear anything new in terms of bug reports in the
> meantime. This release would not include the fix for #1067. (If the  
> PSC
> hasn't voted by that time, I propose that the release be made as  
> soon as
> the PSC has voted.)
>
> I'm +1 on doing this, and will do the release engineering work if  
> there
> are votes against releasing.
>
> Additionally, I'd like to  put #1067 in trunk, and after the GeoJSON
> specification has been finalized, we pull any changes to the GeoJSON
> format back into a 2.5.1 after sufficient testing. The change that  
> we're
> looking at is, imho, too risky to put into a 2.5 release this late in
> the game -- I screwed that up once already ;) (Hence the RC5  
> instead of
> RC4.) I'm interested in what the developer community thinks about  
> doing
> this specifically to support full GeoJSON.
>
> The biggest reason for supporting the GeoJSON spec so strongly is that
> it is a format that we can round trip effectively, unlike many other
> formats. The simple feature model and limited geometry model allow  
> us to
> fully support GeoJSON input/output in OpenLayers, and that's important
> for people to be able to have/understand.
>
> Looking forward to feedback on either of these two items, and would  
> like
> to get the PSC to vote on the 2.5 release when they get a chance.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Christopher Schmidt
> MetaCarta
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Paul Spencer                          [hidden email]    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Chief Technology Officer                                         |
|DM Solutions Group Inc                http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+





_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: 2.5 Final Release

Erik Uzureau-3
+1 euzuró

On 10/8/07, Paul Spencer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 Paul
>
> On 7-Oct-07, at 10:24 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>
> > There have been no new regressions reported in the OpenLayers 2.5
> > release in the time since the release of RC5.
> >
> > There is currently one outstanding issue that Tim had marked for
> > 2.5 --
> > an improvement to GeometryCollection handling in GeoJSON parsing --
> > but
> > it isn't a regression, and the use case where it actually affects
> > people
> > is very small. I'm of the opinion that since the GeoJSON spec is
> > not yet
> > 'done' -- there still could be more changes to it -- we shouldn't hold
> > the release for another edge case lack of support: instead, if we
> > really
> > do want this into something we call 2.5, I'd be in favor of pulling it
> > back and doing a 2.5.1 when the spec is complete. (See
> > http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1067 -- this lack of funtionality
> > only
> > affects the case where a feature is passed with a
> > GeometryCollection as
> > the geometry.)
> >
> > With that being the only outstanding issue, I'd like to motion that we
> > release OpenLayers 2.5 on Tuesday afternoon eastern time -- in
> > about 40
> > hours -- unless we hear anything new in terms of bug reports in the
> > meantime. This release would not include the fix for #1067. (If the
> > PSC
> > hasn't voted by that time, I propose that the release be made as
> > soon as
> > the PSC has voted.)
> >
> > I'm +1 on doing this, and will do the release engineering work if
> > there
> > are votes against releasing.
> >
> > Additionally, I'd like to  put #1067 in trunk, and after the GeoJSON
> > specification has been finalized, we pull any changes to the GeoJSON
> > format back into a 2.5.1 after sufficient testing. The change that
> > we're
> > looking at is, imho, too risky to put into a 2.5 release this late in
> > the game -- I screwed that up once already ;) (Hence the RC5
> > instead of
> > RC4.) I'm interested in what the developer community thinks about
> > doing
> > this specifically to support full GeoJSON.
> >
> > The biggest reason for supporting the GeoJSON spec so strongly is that
> > it is a format that we can round trip effectively, unlike many other
> > formats. The simple feature model and limited geometry model allow
> > us to
> > fully support GeoJSON input/output in OpenLayers, and that's important
> > for people to be able to have/understand.
> >
> > Looking forward to feedback on either of these two items, and would
> > like
> > to get the PSC to vote on the 2.5 release when they get a chance.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Christopher Schmidt
> > MetaCarta
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> |Paul Spencer                          [hidden email]    |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> |Chief Technology Officer                                         |
> |DM Solutions Group Inc                http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: 2.5 Final Release

Cameron Shorter
+1

Erik Uzureau wrote:

> +1 euzuró
>
> On 10/8/07, Paul Spencer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> +1 Paul
>>
>> On 7-Oct-07, at 10:24 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> There have been no new regressions reported in the OpenLayers 2.5
>>> release in the time since the release of RC5.
>>>
>>> There is currently one outstanding issue that Tim had marked for
>>> 2.5 --
>>> an improvement to GeometryCollection handling in GeoJSON parsing --
>>> but
>>> it isn't a regression, and the use case where it actually affects
>>> people
>>> is very small. I'm of the opinion that since the GeoJSON spec is
>>> not yet
>>> 'done' -- there still could be more changes to it -- we shouldn't hold
>>> the release for another edge case lack of support: instead, if we
>>> really
>>> do want this into something we call 2.5, I'd be in favor of pulling it
>>> back and doing a 2.5.1 when the spec is complete. (See
>>> http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1067 -- this lack of funtionality
>>> only
>>> affects the case where a feature is passed with a
>>> GeometryCollection as
>>> the geometry.)
>>>
>>> With that being the only outstanding issue, I'd like to motion that we
>>> release OpenLayers 2.5 on Tuesday afternoon eastern time -- in
>>> about 40
>>> hours -- unless we hear anything new in terms of bug reports in the
>>> meantime. This release would not include the fix for #1067. (If the
>>> PSC
>>> hasn't voted by that time, I propose that the release be made as
>>> soon as
>>> the PSC has voted.)
>>>
>>> I'm +1 on doing this, and will do the release engineering work if
>>> there
>>> are votes against releasing.
>>>
>>> Additionally, I'd like to  put #1067 in trunk, and after the GeoJSON
>>> specification has been finalized, we pull any changes to the GeoJSON
>>> format back into a 2.5.1 after sufficient testing. The change that
>>> we're
>>> looking at is, imho, too risky to put into a 2.5 release this late in
>>> the game -- I screwed that up once already ;) (Hence the RC5
>>> instead of
>>> RC4.) I'm interested in what the developer community thinks about
>>> doing
>>> this specifically to support full GeoJSON.
>>>
>>> The biggest reason for supporting the GeoJSON spec so strongly is that
>>> it is a format that we can round trip effectively, unlike many other
>>> formats. The simple feature model and limited geometry model allow
>>> us to
>>> fully support GeoJSON input/output in OpenLayers, and that's important
>>> for people to be able to have/understand.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to feedback on either of these two items, and would
>>> like
>>> to get the PSC to vote on the 2.5 release when they get a chance.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Christopher Schmidt
>>> MetaCarta
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>      
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>> |Paul Spencer                          [hidden email]    |
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>> |Chief Technology Officer                                         |
>> |DM Solutions Group Inc                http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ |
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>
>>    
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>  


--
Cameron Shorter
Systems Architect, http://lisasoft.com.au
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254


_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: 2.5 Final Release

Schuyler Erle-2
In reply to this post by Christopher Schmidt-2
* On  7-Oct-2007 at  7:24PM PDT, Christopher Schmidt said:
 
> With that being the only outstanding issue, I'd like to motion that we
> release OpenLayers 2.5 on Tuesday afternoon eastern time -- in about 40
> hours -- unless we hear anything new in terms of bug reports in the
> meantime. This release would not include the fix for #1067. (If the PSC
> hasn't voted by that time, I propose that the release be made as soon as
> the PSC has voted.)

+1 on everything. Nice work, folks. Thanks to everyone who
contributed!

SDE
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion: 2.5 Final Release

Tim Schaub-3
+1 please!

Go 2.5!

Schuyler Erle wrote:

> * On  7-Oct-2007 at  7:24PM PDT, Christopher Schmidt said:
>  
>> With that being the only outstanding issue, I'd like to motion that we
>> release OpenLayers 2.5 on Tuesday afternoon eastern time -- in about 40
>> hours -- unless we hear anything new in terms of bug reports in the
>> meantime. This release would not include the fix for #1067. (If the PSC
>> hasn't voted by that time, I propose that the release be made as soon as
>> the PSC has voted.)
>
> +1 on everything. Nice work, folks. Thanks to everyone who
> contributed!
>
> SDE
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
> !DSPAM:4033,470bacc2143646491211187!
>

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev