Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Veronica Andreo]

Hi everybody,

Ok, so we can now vote the C/C++ RFC, and then open a new thread + RFC
regarding support for python versions.

I'll send the voting motion later today or tomorrow.

Cheers,
Vero

El lun, 22 mar 2021 a las 11:18, Nicklas Larsson ()
escribió:

> Forgot to add: Python support changes with GRASS minor versions adds a bit
> of complication with add-ons, which are bound to major version. I don't
> know what would be the better solution for this.
>
> N.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, 22 March 2021, 10:24:06 CET, Nicklas Larsson via grass-psc <
> grass-...@lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Although I didn't see the need to remove Python from RFC 7 (as it was
> originally formulated), there is also some logic to treat Python as a whole
> in a separate RFC. I don't have strong opinion on either way, therefore I
> lifted out Python from the draft, which now only deals with C and C++.
> Hopefully it may now be ready for vote :).
>
> Regarding Python: I believe version support should be linked to Python
> end-of-life circle and GRASS minor version.
>
> Best,
> Nicklas
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 21 March 2021, 09:04:24 CET, Markus Neteler 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 8:30 PM Veronica Andreo 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone
> >
> > Thanks for all the feedback.
> >
> > In practical terms then, shall we:
> > - remove all python references from the Language Standards draft RFC [0]
> and vote only for C/C++, while creating a separate RFC for the minimum
> python version?
> > - add a formula that sets on which pace the minimum supported python
> version will change to the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and vote for
> everything altogether?
>
> For Python support, it is worth looking at the GDAL RFC 77 which
> includes useful tables and links:
> - https://gdal.org/development/rfc/rfc77_drop_python2_support.html
>
> esp.:
> -
> https://endoflife.date/python#:~:text=The%20support%20for%20Python%202.7,dropping%20support%20for%20Python%202.7
>
> Useful is also
> - https://repology.org/project/python/versions
>
> With respect to the pace of periodic review and updating of the
> language standards support I believe that we need that at the pace of
> sub-major releases (e.g., 7.8 -> 7.9). Just look back at the major
> releases (https://grass.osgeo.org/about/history/releases/) we observe
> quite some time span:
>
> - (2021) GRASS GIS 8.0.0
> - 2015 GRASS GIS 7.0.0
> - 2005 GRASS GIS 6.0.0
> - 2002 GRASS GIS 5.0.0
> - 1991 GRASS 4.0
> - 1988 GRASS 3.0
> - 1987 GRASS 2.0
> - 1984 GRASS 1.0
>
> Hence sub-major releases might be the way to go.
>
> Markus
>
>
> > [0] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport
>
>
> ___
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-...@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev]

Forgot to add: Python support changes with GRASS minor versions adds a bit of 
complication with add-ons, which are bound to major version. I don't know what 
would be the better solution for this.

N.







On Monday, 22 March 2021, 10:24:06 CET, Nicklas Larsson via grass-psc 
 wrote: 





Hi,

Although I didn't see the need to remove Python from RFC 7 (as it was 
originally formulated), there is also some logic to treat Python as a whole in 
a separate RFC. I don't have strong opinion on either way, therefore I lifted 
out Python from the draft, which now only deals with C and C++. Hopefully it 
may now be ready for vote :).

Regarding Python: I believe version support should be linked to Python 
end-of-life circle and GRASS minor version.

Best,
Nicklas




On Sunday, 21 March 2021, 09:04:24 CET, Markus Neteler  
wrote: 





Hi,

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 8:30 PM Veronica Andreo  wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Thanks for all the feedback.
>
> In practical terms then, shall we:
> - remove all python references from the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and 
> vote only for C/C++, while creating a separate RFC for the minimum python 
> version?
> - add a formula that sets on which pace the minimum supported python version 
> will change to the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and vote for everything 
> altogether?

For Python support, it is worth looking at the GDAL RFC 77 which
includes useful tables and links:
- https://gdal.org/development/rfc/rfc77_drop_python2_support.html

esp.:
- 
https://endoflife.date/python#:~:text=The%20support%20for%20Python%202.7,dropping%20support%20for%20Python%202.7

Useful is also
- https://repology.org/project/python/versions

With respect to the pace of periodic review and updating of the
language standards support I believe that we need that at the pace of
sub-major releases (e.g., 7.8 -> 7.9). Just look back at the major
releases (https://grass.osgeo.org/about/history/releases/) we observe
quite some time span:

- (2021) GRASS GIS 8.0.0
- 2015 GRASS GIS 7.0.0
- 2005 GRASS GIS 6.0.0
- 2002 GRASS GIS 5.0.0
- 1991 GRASS 4.0
- 1988 GRASS 3.0
- 1987 GRASS 2.0
- 1984 GRASS 1.0

Hence sub-major releases might be the way to go.

Markus


> [0] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport


___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-...@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev]

 Hi,

Although I didn't see the need to remove Python from RFC 7 (as it was 
originally formulated), there is also some logic to treat Python as a whole in 
a separate RFC. I don't have strong opinion on either way, therefore I lifted 
out Python from the draft, which now only deals with C and C++. Hopefully it 
may now be ready for vote :).

Regarding Python: I believe version support should be linked to Python 
end-of-life circle and GRASS minor version.

Best,
Nicklas
 On Sunday, 21 March 2021, 09:04:24 CET, Markus Neteler  
wrote:  
 
 Hi,

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 8:30 PM Veronica Andreo  wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Thanks for all the feedback.
>
> In practical terms then, shall we:
> - remove all python references from the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and 
> vote only for C/C++, while creating a separate RFC for the minimum python 
> version?
> - add a formula that sets on which pace the minimum supported python version 
> will change to the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and vote for everything 
> altogether?

For Python support, it is worth looking at the GDAL RFC 77 which
includes useful tables and links:
- https://gdal.org/development/rfc/rfc77_drop_python2_support.html

esp.:
- 
https://endoflife.date/python#:~:text=The%20support%20for%20Python%202.7,dropping%20support%20for%20Python%202.7

Useful is also
- https://repology.org/project/python/versions

With respect to the pace of periodic review and updating of the
language standards support I believe that we need that at the pace of
sub-major releases (e.g., 7.8 -> 7.9). Just look back at the major
releases (https://grass.osgeo.org/about/history/releases/) we observe
quite some time span:

- (2021) GRASS GIS 8.0.0
- 2015 GRASS GIS 7.0.0
- 2005 GRASS GIS 6.0.0
- 2002 GRASS GIS 5.0.0
- 1991 GRASS 4.0
- 1988 GRASS 3.0
- 1987 GRASS 2.0
- 1984 GRASS 1.0

Hence sub-major releases might be the way to go.

Markus

> [0] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport
  ___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Markus Neteler]

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 8:30 PM Veronica Andreo  wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Thanks for all the feedback.
>
> In practical terms then, shall we:
> - remove all python references from the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and 
> vote only for C/C++, while creating a separate RFC for the minimum python 
> version?
> - add a formula that sets on which pace the minimum supported python version 
> will change to the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and vote for everything 
> altogether?

For Python support, it is worth looking at the GDAL RFC 77 which
includes useful tables and links:
- https://gdal.org/development/rfc/rfc77_drop_python2_support.html

esp.:
- 
https://endoflife.date/python#:~:text=The%20support%20for%20Python%202.7,dropping%20support%20for%20Python%202.7

Useful is also
- https://repology.org/project/python/versions

With respect to the pace of periodic review and updating of the
language standards support I believe that we need that at the pace of
sub-major releases (e.g., 7.8 -> 7.9). Just look back at the major
releases (https://grass.osgeo.org/about/history/releases/) we observe
quite some time span:

- (2021) GRASS GIS 8.0.0
- 2015 GRASS GIS 7.0.0
- 2005 GRASS GIS 6.0.0
- 2002 GRASS GIS 5.0.0
- 1991 GRASS 4.0
- 1988 GRASS 3.0
- 1987 GRASS 2.0
- 1984 GRASS 1.0

Hence sub-major releases might be the way to go.

Markus

> [0] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Michael Barton]

It seems like it would be a good idea to include a section for periodic review 
and updating of the language standards support. That is, do we review and 
reissue with each major version release (e.g., 7 -> 8)? Each sub-major release 
(7.8 -> 7.9). Or do we review and potentially update with any major/sub-major 
update of the language and its distribution (e.g., Python 2 -> 3 or 3.7 -> 
3.8)? Or are there other ways to decide when to do review and update this 
standard?

Michael
_
C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Director, Network for Computational Modeling in Social & Ecological Sciences
Associate Director, School of Complex Adaptive Systems
Professor, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ  85287-2402
USA

voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671(SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)
www: http://shesc.asu.edu, https://complexity.asu.edu, 
http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton

On Mar 16, 2021, at 12:30 PM, Veronica Andreo 
mailto:veroand...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi everyone

Thanks for all the feedback.

In practical terms then, shall we:
- remove all python references from the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and 
vote only for C/C++, while creating a separate RFC for the minimum python 
version?
- add a formula that sets on which pace the minimum supported python version 
will change to the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and vote for everything 
altogether?

Vero

[0] 
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport

El mar, 2 mar 2021 a las 22:54, Markus Neteler 
(mailto:nete...@osgeo.org>>) escribió:
Hi all,

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:15 AM Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev
mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>> wrote:
>
> Good, Anna, you brought up this question on regular update of Python version 
> support. I deliberately left that part out of the draft for setting/updating 
> language standards, as I would argue it deserves a RFC on its own.

I agree to both:

- we need to find a formula with our release rhythm and the oldest
still supported Python version,
- and yes, please let's separate this out into a different discussion
(RFC if needed).

I.e., one C/C++ RFC and one Python RFC.

> A RFC should't be updatable, but may be overridden, partly or completely, 
> with a new RFC. Adopting adherence to a new C or C++ standard will most 
> likely be a quite rare business and should be dealt with a new RFC.

I agree to that, as it would become a moving target otherwise.

> The discussed approach, following the Python versions life-cycle, could 
> possibly look a little different, however the forms and modes for this should 
> be established likewise with a RFC.
>
> If we agree now, to set Python 3.6 as a minimum, we have roughly six months 
> to work out such a procedure. I’m glad to assist to this in, say around, 
> October, in time for the 3.6 retirement.

Let me suggest to separate Python out into another discussion.
The pace of C/++ standards and that of Python versions are quite
different and not easy to handle in a single RFC.

Just my 0.02 cents,

Markus
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-...@lists.osgeo.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!IGGdA3JGHwIvM70uQAxKgP-SoAnSPcupVWcVBGmLKhV4ocBAMqqxF8S2vhiwWU_OZbE7gBY$

___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Veronica Andreo]

Hi everyone

Thanks for all the feedback.

In practical terms then, shall we:
- remove all python references from the Language Standards draft RFC [0]
and vote only for C/C++, while creating a separate RFC for the minimum
python version?
- add a formula that sets on which pace the minimum supported python
version will change to the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and vote for
everything altogether?

Vero

[0] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport

El mar, 2 mar 2021 a las 22:54, Markus Neteler ()
escribió:

> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:15 AM Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev
>  wrote:
> >
> > Good, Anna, you brought up this question on regular update of Python
> version support. I deliberately left that part out of the draft for
> setting/updating language standards, as I would argue it deserves a RFC on
> its own.
>
> I agree to both:
>
> - we need to find a formula with our release rhythm and the oldest
> still supported Python version,
> - and yes, please let's separate this out into a different discussion
> (RFC if needed).
>
> I.e., one C/C++ RFC and one Python RFC.
>
> > A RFC should't be updatable, but may be overridden, partly or
> completely, with a new RFC. Adopting adherence to a new C or C++ standard
> will most likely be a quite rare business and should be dealt with a new
> RFC.
>
> I agree to that, as it would become a moving target otherwise.
>
> > The discussed approach, following the Python versions life-cycle, could
> possibly look a little different, however the forms and modes for this
> should be established likewise with a RFC.
> >
> > If we agree now, to set Python 3.6 as a minimum, we have roughly six
> months to work out such a procedure. I’m glad to assist to this in, say
> around, October, in time for the 3.6 retirement.
>
> Let me suggest to separate Python out into another discussion.
> The pace of C/++ standards and that of Python versions are quite
> different and not easy to handle in a single RFC.
>
> Just my 0.02 cents,
>
> Markus
>
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Markus Neteler]

Hi all,

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:15 AM Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev
 wrote:
>
> Good, Anna, you brought up this question on regular update of Python version 
> support. I deliberately left that part out of the draft for setting/updating 
> language standards, as I would argue it deserves a RFC on its own.

I agree to both:

- we need to find a formula with our release rhythm and the oldest
still supported Python version,
- and yes, please let's separate this out into a different discussion
(RFC if needed).

I.e., one C/C++ RFC and one Python RFC.

> A RFC should't be updatable, but may be overridden, partly or completely, 
> with a new RFC. Adopting adherence to a new C or C++ standard will most 
> likely be a quite rare business and should be dealt with a new RFC.

I agree to that, as it would become a moving target otherwise.

> The discussed approach, following the Python versions life-cycle, could 
> possibly look a little different, however the forms and modes for this should 
> be established likewise with a RFC.
>
> If we agree now, to set Python 3.6 as a minimum, we have roughly six months 
> to work out such a procedure. I’m glad to assist to this in, say around, 
> October, in time for the 3.6 retirement.

Let me suggest to separate Python out into another discussion.
The pace of C/++ standards and that of Python versions are quite
different and not easy to handle in a single RFC.

Just my 0.02 cents,

Markus
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev]

 Good, Anna, you brought up this question on regular update of Python version 
support. I deliberately left that part out of the draft for setting/updating 
language standards, as I would argue it deserves a RFC on its own.

A RFC should't be updatable, but may be overridden, partly or completely, with 
a new RFC. Adopting adherence to a new C or C++ standard will most likely be a 
quite rare business and should be dealt with a new RFC. The discussed approach, 
following the Python versions life-cycle, could possibly look a little 
different, however the forms and modes for this should be established likewise 
with a RFC.

If we agree now, to set Python 3.6 as a minimum, we have roughly six months to 
work out such a procedure. I’m glad to assist to this in, say around, October, 
in time for the 3.6 retirement.

Cheers,
Nicklas
 On Sunday, 28 February 2021, 21:55:57 CET, Anna Petrášová 
 wrote:  
 
 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 1:45 PM Veronica Andreo  wrote:

Dear Nicklas, 

Thanks much for such a clearly written RFC! I only made very minor cosmetic 
changes. 

Are there any other comments, objections or suggestions? Or further aspects to 
be discussed?If no, maybe we can vote on it soon-ish, no?
Have a nice weekend :)Vero


Regarding Python support, I thought we could add more specific rules for 
updating it, since that will happen fairly often. E.g. "For a new release of a 
minor GRASS version, the Python minimum version should be raised if the current 
minimum Python version reaches end of life or there are any important technical 
reasons."Once we need to update the min version (next year I suppose), would 
this RFC be updated? I guess I am unsure if the RFC is supposed to work.
Anna

El mar, 16 feb 2021 a las 15:36, Nicklas Larsson via grass-psc 
() escribió:

 I added the RFC draft to GRASS Wiki [1].

Well, it's only a draft, so any thoughts, modifications, additions are most 
welcome!

Nicklas


[1] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport



 On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 14:34:44 CET, Moritz Lennert 
 wrote:  
 
 

Am 11. Februar 2021 13:29:10 MEZ schrieb Nicklas Larsson :
> Moritz,
>
>I'd be honoured!
>I will put it on GRASS Wiki [1] if you don't have another suggestion and 
>notify here when done.


Great, thanks a lot !

Moritz

>
>[1] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC
>
>
>
>    On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 12:54:30 CET, Moritz Lennert 
> wrote:  
> 
> On 10/02/21 13:16, Nicklas Larsson wrote:
>> It would be most favourable for all contributors and the project if the 
>> community could come to an agreement on this topic. I see no reason to 
>> postpone a decision on this much longer.
>> 
>> The final word on this need to be that of the PSC's. Whether through 
>> simple vote or a RFC. However, a sounding of the opinion of the 
>> dev-community on this matter is of equal importance and can be of help 
>> for the PSC.
>
>Thanks a lot, Nicklas, for this very comprehensive summary !
>
>A suggestion made at the first meeting of the new PSC was to use this 
>discussion as a use case for a more extensive usage of RFC's to put 
>important decisions into more permanent documents than mailing list 
>archives and to provoke a formal decision as you suggest. Would you be 
>willing to write a first draft of such an RFC ?
>
>Moritz
>
  ___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-...@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-...@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

  ___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Anna Petrášová]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 1:45 PM Veronica Andreo 
wrote:

> Dear Nicklas,
>
> Thanks much for such a clearly written RFC! I only made very minor
> cosmetic changes.
>
> Are there any other comments, objections or suggestions? Or further
> aspects to be discussed?
> If no, maybe we can vote on it soon-ish, no?
>
> Have a nice weekend :)
> Vero
>

Regarding Python support, I thought we could add more specific rules for
updating it, since that will happen fairly often. E.g. "For a new release
of a minor GRASS version, the Python minimum version should be raised if
the current minimum Python version reaches end of life or there are any
important technical reasons."
Once we need to update the min version (next year I suppose), would this
RFC be updated? I guess I am unsure if the RFC is supposed to work.

Anna

>
> El mar, 16 feb 2021 a las 15:36, Nicklas Larsson via grass-psc (<
> grass-...@lists.osgeo.org>) escribió:
>
>> I added the RFC draft to GRASS Wiki [1].
>>
>> Well, it's only a draft, so any thoughts, modifications, additions are
>> most welcome!
>>
>> Nicklas
>>
>>
>> [1] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 14:34:44 CET, Moritz Lennert <
>> mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 11. Februar 2021 13:29:10 MEZ schrieb Nicklas Larsson <
>> n_lars...@yahoo.com>:
>> > Moritz,
>> >
>> >I'd be honoured!
>> >I will put it on GRASS Wiki [1] if you don't have another suggestion and
>> notify here when done.
>>
>>
>> Great, thanks a lot !
>>
>>
>> Moritz
>>
>> >
>> >[1] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 12:54:30 CET, Moritz Lennert <
>> mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 10/02/21 13:16, Nicklas Larsson wrote:
>> >> It would be most favourable for all contributors and the project if
>> the
>> >> community could come to an agreement on this topic. I see no reason to
>> >> postpone a decision on this much longer.
>> >>
>> >> The final word on this need to be that of the PSC's. Whether through
>> >> simple vote or a RFC. However, a sounding of the opinion of the
>> >> dev-community on this matter is of equal importance and can be of help
>> >> for the PSC.
>> >
>> >Thanks a lot, Nicklas, for this very comprehensive summary !
>> >
>> >A suggestion made at the first meeting of the new PSC was to use this
>> >discussion as a use case for a more extensive usage of RFC's to put
>> >important decisions into more permanent documents than mailing list
>> >archives and to provoke a formal decision as you suggest. Would you be
>> >willing to write a first draft of such an RFC ?
>> >
>> >Moritz
>> >
>> ___
>> grass-psc mailing list
>> grass-...@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>
> ___
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-...@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Moritz Lennert]

On 26/02/21 19:44, Veronica Andreo wrote:

Dear Nicklas,

Thanks much for such a clearly written RFC! I only made very minor 
cosmetic changes.


Are there any other comments, objections or suggestions? Or further 
aspects to be discussed?

If no, maybe we can vote on it soon-ish, no?


No objections on my side. The RFC is clear and the discussion has 
already taken place, so +1 for bringing this to a vote.


Moritz
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Veronica Andreo]

Dear Nicklas,

Thanks much for such a clearly written RFC! I only made very minor cosmetic
changes.

Are there any other comments, objections or suggestions? Or further aspects
to be discussed?
If no, maybe we can vote on it soon-ish, no?

Have a nice weekend :)
Vero

El mar, 16 feb 2021 a las 15:36, Nicklas Larsson via grass-psc (<
grass-...@lists.osgeo.org>) escribió:

> I added the RFC draft to GRASS Wiki [1].
>
> Well, it's only a draft, so any thoughts, modifications, additions are
> most welcome!
>
> Nicklas
>
>
> [1] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 14:34:44 CET, Moritz Lennert <
> mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Am 11. Februar 2021 13:29:10 MEZ schrieb Nicklas Larsson <
> n_lars...@yahoo.com>:
> > Moritz,
> >
> >I'd be honoured!
> >I will put it on GRASS Wiki [1] if you don't have another suggestion and
> notify here when done.
>
>
> Great, thanks a lot !
>
>
> Moritz
>
> >
> >[1] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC
> >
> >
> >
> >On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 12:54:30 CET, Moritz Lennert <
> mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/02/21 13:16, Nicklas Larsson wrote:
> >> It would be most favourable for all contributors and the project if the
> >> community could come to an agreement on this topic. I see no reason to
> >> postpone a decision on this much longer.
> >>
> >> The final word on this need to be that of the PSC's. Whether through
> >> simple vote or a RFC. However, a sounding of the opinion of the
> >> dev-community on this matter is of equal importance and can be of help
> >> for the PSC.
> >
> >Thanks a lot, Nicklas, for this very comprehensive summary !
> >
> >A suggestion made at the first meeting of the new PSC was to use this
> >discussion as a use case for a more extensive usage of RFC's to put
> >important decisions into more permanent documents than mailing list
> >archives and to provoke a formal decision as you suggest. Would you be
> >willing to write a first draft of such an RFC ?
> >
> >Moritz
> >
> ___
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-...@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Michael Barton]

Ahh.
_
C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Director, Network for Computational Modeling in Social & Ecological Sciences
Associate Director, School of Complex Adaptive Systems
Professor, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ  85287-2402
USA

voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671(SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)
www: http://shesc.asu.edu, https://complexity.asu.edu, 
http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton

On Feb 11, 2021, at 1:14 PM, Markus Neteler 
mailto:nete...@osgeo.org>> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:14 PM Michael Barton 
mailto:michael.bar...@asu.edu>> wrote:

For some reason, I'm not seeing the new RFC at 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!JZ1rTME_89so-xmZFVkY1n5-WrvplN_CAYpLry8MZW6jY05_Pb9wfyhOpPGcCMZj97K71oU$

It still needs to be written :-)

Markus

___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Markus Neteler]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:14 PM Michael Barton  wrote:
>
> For some reason, I'm not seeing the new RFC at 
> https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC

It still needs to be written :-)

Markus
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Michael Barton]

For some reason, I'm not seeing the new RFC at 
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC

Michael
_
C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Director, Network for Computational Modeling in Social & Ecological Sciences
Associate Director, School of Complex Adaptive Systems
Professor, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ  85287-2402
USA

voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671(SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)
www: http://shesc.asu.edu, https://complexity.asu.edu, 
http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton

On Feb 11, 2021, at 1:09 PM, Veronica Andreo 
mailto:veroand...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I was just about to pop up in this discussion with the RFC suggestion :)

Thanks a lot Nicklas and Moritz!

El jue, 11 feb 2021 a las 14:34, Moritz Lennert 
(mailto:mlenn...@club.worldonline.be>>) escribió:


Am 11. Februar 2021 13:29:10 MEZ schrieb Nicklas Larsson 
mailto:n_lars...@yahoo.com>>:
> Moritz,
>
>I'd be honoured!
>I will put it on GRASS Wiki [1] if you don't have another suggestion and 
>notify here when done.


Great, thanks a lot !

Moritz

>
>[1] 
>https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 12:54:30 CET, Moritz Lennert 
> mailto:mlenn...@club.worldonline.be>> wrote:
>
> On 10/02/21 13:16, Nicklas Larsson wrote:
>> It would be most favourable for all contributors and the project if the
>> community could come to an agreement on this topic. I see no reason to
>> postpone a decision on this much longer.
>>
>> The final word on this need to be that of the PSC's. Whether through
>> simple vote or a RFC. However, a sounding of the opinion of the
>> dev-community on this matter is of equal importance and can be of help
>> for the PSC.
>
>Thanks a lot, Nicklas, for this very comprehensive summary !
>
>A suggestion made at the first meeting of the new PSC was to use this
>discussion as a use case for a more extensive usage of RFC's to put
>important decisions into more permanent documents than mailing list
>archives and to provoke a formal decision as you suggest. Would you be
>willing to write a first draft of such an RFC ?
>
>Moritz
>
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-...@lists.osgeo.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!OYpAswj3VgMcI6vClvpJfqqSfIe4MxgmHEew5y8Fps-L4jGudsYNJ6eLwZnlHmcg-9htarA$

___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev