On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:55 AM Daniel Baston <dbas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think a safer and lower-maintenance solution would be to write it in > such a way that it can link to multiple versions of GEOS, rather than > developing it in parallel across four branches. > Perhaps, but no time to do that now. > > If it is backported I think it is reasonable for the build warnings to be > cleared up first. > Agreed. > It should probably be disabled by default in stable branches to avoid > introducing an unforeseen build problem. > Agreed. Also, the 3.6 branch uses C++98, so features such as lambdas and unique_ptr > cannot be used, unless the build system is configured to use C++11 for > geosop and C++98 for the remainder. Any changes to the build system should > also work with the minimum CMake version for those branches (3.0 for the > 3.6 branch). > I am not intending to backport to 3.6 > > Dan > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 2:16 PM Martin Davis <mtncl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey GEOS devs, >> >> I'm thinking about committing back-ported versions of geosop to 3.9, 3.8 >> and 3.7. >> >> Any objections? And any further objections if I don't bother with the >> autotools build setup? >> _______________________________________________ >> geos-devel mailing list >> geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel >> > _______________________________________________ > geos-devel mailing list > geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel >
_______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel