[gdal-dev] Should the next version (previously 2.5) be called GDAL 3.0 ?

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

[gdal-dev] Should the next version (previously 2.5) be called GDAL 3.0 ?

Even Rouault-2

Hi,


As a feedback from the previous motion, it appears that GDAL 3.0 would

probably better reflect the API & behaviour changes that have been done, and

be in accordance with our HOWTO-RELEASE procedure and semantic versionning

rules.


I'm OK with that change.


If we decide for that, the plan would probably be:

- change in docs & other materials the references to 2.5 to 3.0

- create a release/3.0 branch from the HEAD of release/2.5

- abandon release/2.5 branch (that is: backports would be done in release/3.0,

and for longer support in release/2.4 when appropriate)

- issue a 3.0.0RC1 from that

- call master 3.1dev


Thoughts ?


Even


--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com


_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should the next version (previously 2.5) be called GDAL 3.0 ?

Frank Warmerdam
Even,

I think calling it 3.0 would be reasonable.

Best regards,
Frank


On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:56 AM Even Rouault <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,


As a feedback from the previous motion, it appears that GDAL 3.0 would

probably better reflect the API & behaviour changes that have been done, and

be in accordance with our HOWTO-RELEASE procedure and semantic versionning

rules.


I'm OK with that change.


If we decide for that, the plan would probably be:

- change in docs & other materials the references to 2.5 to 3.0

- create a release/3.0 branch from the HEAD of release/2.5

- abandon release/2.5 branch (that is: backports would be done in release/3.0,

and for longer support in release/2.4 when appropriate)

- issue a 3.0.0RC1 from that

- call master 3.1dev


Thoughts ?


Even


--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com

_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev


--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows |
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer

_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should the next version (previously 2.5) be called GDAL 3.0 ?

Kurt Schwehr-2
+1 Calling it 3.0 would definitely help non-developers understand how different/better things are.

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:09 PM Frank Warmerdam <[hidden email]> wrote:
Even,

I think calling it 3.0 would be reasonable.

Best regards,
Frank


On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:56 AM Even Rouault <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,


As a feedback from the previous motion, it appears that GDAL 3.0 would

probably better reflect the API & behaviour changes that have been done, and

be in accordance with our HOWTO-RELEASE procedure and semantic versionning

rules.


I'm OK with that change.


If we decide for that, the plan would probably be:

- change in docs & other materials the references to 2.5 to 3.0

- create a release/3.0 branch from the HEAD of release/2.5

- abandon release/2.5 branch (that is: backports would be done in release/3.0,

and for longer support in release/2.4 when appropriate)

- issue a 3.0.0RC1 from that

- call master 3.1dev


Thoughts ?


Even


--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com

_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev


--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows |
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev


--

_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should the next version (previously 2.5) be called GDAL 3.0 ?

jmckenna
Administrator
In reply to this post by Even Rouault-2
I like 3.0 as well.  -jeff



On 2019-05-01 3:56 PM, Even Rouault wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> As a feedback from the previous motion, it appears that GDAL 3.0 would
>
> probably better reflect the API & behaviour changes that have been done,
> and
>
> be in accordance with our HOWTO-RELEASE procedure and semantic versionning
>
> rules.
>
>
> I'm OK with that change.
>
>
> If we decide for that, the plan would probably be:
>
> - change in docs & other materials the references to 2.5 to 3.0
>
> - create a release/3.0 branch from the HEAD of release/2.5
>
> - abandon release/2.5 branch (that is: backports would be done in
> release/3.0,
>
> and for longer support in release/2.4 when appropriate)
>
> - issue a 3.0.0RC1 from that
>
> - call master 3.1dev
>
>
> Thoughts ?
>
>
> Even
>
>
> --
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
> http://www.spatialys.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>


--
Jeff McKenna
MapServer Consulting and Training Services
https://gatewaygeomatics.com/
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should the next version (previously 2.5) be called GDAL 3.0 ?

Mateusz Loskot
In reply to this post by Even Rouault-2
On Wed, 1 May 2019, 20:56 Even Rouault, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,


As a feedback from the previous motion, it appears that GDAL 3.0 would

probably better reflect the API & behaviour changes that have been done, and

be in accordance with our HOWTO-RELEASE procedure and semantic versionning

rules.


I'm OK with that change



I'm not claiming right to vote here. 
Although I haven't been too active as contributor for quite some time, I'm not indifferent. I'm active user and I do 
monitor what's happening and I think calling the next release 3.0 is a good idea. 


Mateusz Loskot, [hidden email]
(Sent from mobile)

_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should the next version (previously 2.5) be called GDAL 3.0 ?

Nyall Dawson
In reply to this post by Even Rouault-2
On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 04:56, Even Rouault <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> As a feedback from the previous motion, it appears that GDAL 3.0 would
>
> probably better reflect the API & behaviour changes that have been done, and
>
> be in accordance with our HOWTO-RELEASE procedure and semantic versionning

I'm +1 for this -- I also think that API has changed with the proj
upgrade. Even the removal of support files like the gcs.csv file has
impact on downstream projects which rightly or wrongly depend on this
file (e.g. QGIS).

Is there any other api breaking changes planned if the version does
get bumped to 3.0? Or is it restricted solely to the projection
related api?

Nyall
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should the next version (previously 2.5) be called GDAL 3.0 ?

Daniel Morissette
In reply to this post by Even Rouault-2
+1 to calling it 3.0 and to your proposed plan.

Thank you Even.

Daniel


On 2019-05-01 14:56, Even Rouault wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> As a feedback from the previous motion, it appears that GDAL 3.0 would
>
> probably better reflect the API & behaviour changes that have been done,
> and
>
> be in accordance with our HOWTO-RELEASE procedure and semantic versionning
>
> rules.
>
>
> I'm OK with that change.
>
>
> If we decide for that, the plan would probably be:
>
> - change in docs & other materials the references to 2.5 to 3.0
>
> - create a release/3.0 branch from the HEAD of release/2.5
>
> - abandon release/2.5 branch (that is: backports would be done in
> release/3.0,
>
> and for longer support in release/2.4 when appropriate)
>
> - issue a 3.0.0RC1 from that
>
> - call master 3.1dev
>
>
> Thoughts ?
>
>
> Even
>
>
> --
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
> http://www.spatialys.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>


--
Daniel Morissette
Mapgears Inc
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should the next version (previously 2.5) be called GDAL 3.0 ?

Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
It's a year of major version bump in GIS. Proj 6 (2x3), PostGIS 3, possibly pgRouting 3. Three is a popular GIS version number this year.

I'd +1. Only question is whether you have plans for even more major API breaks this year, so that 3.0 sticks for a little while.

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 4:56 AM Daniel Morissette <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to calling it 3.0 and to your proposed plan.

Thank you Even.

Daniel


On 2019-05-01 14:56, Even Rouault wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> As a feedback from the previous motion, it appears that GDAL 3.0 would
>
> probably better reflect the API & behaviour changes that have been done,
> and
>
> be in accordance with our HOWTO-RELEASE procedure and semantic versionning
>
> rules.
>
>
> I'm OK with that change.
>
>
> If we decide for that, the plan would probably be:
>
> - change in docs & other materials the references to 2.5 to 3.0
>
> - create a release/3.0 branch from the HEAD of release/2.5
>
> - abandon release/2.5 branch (that is: backports would be done in
> release/3.0,
>
> and for longer support in release/2.4 when appropriate)
>
> - issue a 3.0.0RC1 from that
>
> - call master 3.1dev
>
>
> Thoughts ?
>
>
> Even
>
>
> --
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
> http://www.spatialys.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>


--
Daniel Morissette
Mapgears Inc
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev


--
Darafei Praliaskouski

_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should the next version (previously 2.5) be called GDAL 3.0 ?

Even Rouault-2
In reply to this post by Nyall Dawson
> Is there any other api breaking changes planned if the version does
> get bumped to 3.0? Or is it restricted solely to the projection
> related api?

Well, I was about *releasing* the version, and don't intend to postpone it
significantly, so no there won't be any surprise last-minute changes than the
ones already documented in MIGRATION_GUIDE.TXT. After all, major version
numbers are cheap, so if during the next dev cycle 3.1dev turns out to need
API breaks, it will be 4.0 ...

Even

--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev