In view of Markus M explanation, +1 for RC2 today rather than tomorrow. On 16 January 2015 at 20:31, Markus Metz <markus.metz.gisw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Moritz Lennert > <mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote: > > On 16/01/15 12:15, Martin Landa wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> 2015-01-16 12:13 GMT+01:00 Markus Metz <markus.metz.gisw...@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> Can we please get RC2 out soon? In the last days I have fixed numerous > >>> bugs in the vector library and changed/restored the basic vector IO > >>> interface, it is now more similar to G6 and it needed some code clean > >>> up. > > > > > > Thanks for all this work ! Could you explain a bit more on what types of > > bugs this fixed ? > > The first set of bugs was related to vector topology. > > Bug 1 affected point-in-polygon tests, a basic geometry function. The > affected functions were Vect_point_in_area(), > Vect_point_in_area_outer_ring() and Vect_point_in_island() which > returned sometimes the wrong result (point outside instead of inside > or vice versa). This in turn affected the functions > Vect_attach_centroids(), Vect_attach_isle() and Vect_attach_isles() > which are needed to update topology when boundaries are added, deleted > or modified. > > Bug 2 was in Vect_attach_centroids() andVect_attach_isles(). Centroids > and isles were not properly reattached when boundaries are added, > deleted or modified. These bugs still need to be fixed in G6. > > Bugs 1 + 2 meant that (re)attaching centroids and isles during vector > modification was not working well, a fairly important feature for > modifying vector topology. > > The modifications related to basic vector IO fixed some bugs > introduced in G7. Some functions were only working with topology, even > though equivalent functions not requiring topology are available. A > newly introduced test prevented access to the non-topological > variants. Further on, some function definitions were changed such that > new arguments were introduced that were not used/not needed. I have > syncronized the IO interface and updated the documentation. It is now > more similar to G6 and some functions have become non-topological > equivalents (interesting for large point clouds). > > > > >> > >> I agree, but would suggest to wait at least one/two week(s), probably > >> more bugfixes will be collected. > >> > > > > As these seem to be modifications in fundamental library functions, I > would > > plead for getting RC2 out more quickly than foreseen, i.e. I'd plead for > 1 > > week, not 2. That way these modifications will get a bit more testing > before > > the final release. > > I would plead for 1 day rather than 1 week. > > > > > This is one example of why the proposed release procedure [1] contains > this: > > > > "Any backports during the soft freeze should be announced on the > developers > > mailing list with 24 hours advance to allow possible discussion." > > > > Maybe this should be extended to "Any backports or extensive bug fixes > > during..." ? > > > > If these changes had been announced, we could have delayed RC1 for a few > > days... > > I discovered the bugs only in the last days and tried to get them > fixed as soon as possible, but some of the bugs were rather obscure > and I had no idea how quickly I would be able to find their reason and > fix them. The fixes are all thoroughly tested (I guess I have never > before tested vector topology so thoroughly...). > > Markus M > > > > > Moritz > > > > [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure > _______________________________________________ > grass-dev mailing list > grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev > -- ----
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev