Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion for RFC 71: Migration to GitHub

On 20/03/18 07:40, Even Rouault wrote: > https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc71_github_migration +1 ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev

Re: [gdal-dev] Trac to GitHub

On 20/03/18 00:25, Even Rouault wrote: > A more complicated version of the above is that we would migrate only the > open > Trac tickets to github (so < 600 instead of 6000). And we would add in each > open Trac ticket a message like "This ticket has been migated to https:// >

Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion for RFC 71: Migration to GitHub

On 19 March 2018 at 22:17, Even Rouault wrote: >> >> "Most visible Trac wiki documentation will have to be revised to point >> to GitHub?" > > I meant everywhere we mention svn, we should point to git/github. > >> I think, this means the content is copied to GitHub

Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion for RFC 71: Migration to GitHub

> Perhaps, at some point this could move to gh-pages completely. > Possibly, I don't see any emergency for that. > "Most visible Trac wiki documentation will have to be revised to point > to GitHub?" I meant everywhere we mention svn, we should point to git/github. > > I think, this means

Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion for RFC 71: Migration to GitHub

On 19 March 2018 at 21:40, Even Rouault wrote: > Hi, > > To follow our processes, I've initiated a RFC related to the migration to > GitHub > > https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc71_github_migration A few comments: "5. The cron job on the OSGeo server that refreshes

[gdal-dev] Call for discussion for RFC 71: Migration to GitHub

Hi, To follow our processes, I've initiated a RFC related to the migration to GitHub https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc71_github_migration In the hope to finally go from recuring discussions that have occured during the past years to a concrete end result, I've clearly simplified the

Re: [gdal-dev] Trac to GitHub

On 20/03/18 00:25, Even Rouault wrote: > I actually discussed about that with Howard yesterday, and he suggested an > even easier and least-effort solution. Do we actually need to migrate the > existing Trac ticket database to github ? This brings up another thing I have been wondering about:

Re: [gdal-dev] Trac to GitHub

On 19 March 2018 at 18:14, Even Rouault wrote: >>> 3) Close all Trac tickets with assignment to a "closed-before-github- >>> migration" milestone, and a message "Issue reporting has now been migrated >>> >to >> https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/issues...; >> >>I guess,

Re: [gdal-dev] Trac to GitHub

Mateuze, Answering several of your points of your last emails; >> 3) Close all Trac tickets with assignment to a "closed-before-github- >> migration" milestone, and a message "Issue reporting has now been migrated >> >to > https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/issues...; > >I guess, you mean manual

Re: [gdal-dev] Trac to GitHub

On 19 March 2018 at 17:42, Even Rouault wrote: > Regarding my point 1), I've experimented locally on my git clone to rewrite > references > to Trac tickets like "fix #1234" to become "fix > https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/1234; Looks good. > with > > git

Re: [gdal-dev] Trac to GitHub

On 19 March 2018 at 14:25, Even Rouault wrote: > I actually discussed about that with Howard yesterday, and he suggested an > even easier and least-effort solution. Do we actually need to migrate the > existing Trac ticket database to github ? I'm glad Howard came up

Re: [gdal-dev] Trac to GitHub

On 19 March 2018 at 15:15, Even Rouault wrote: > On lundi 19 mars 2018 14:55:14 CET Tamas Szekeres wrote: >> I don't think the trac tickets should be closed automatically. The ticket >> owners should decide either to close (with a meaningful comment) or copy >> it's

Re: [gdal-dev] Trac to GitHub

Regarding my point 1), I've experimented locally on my git clone to rewrite references to Trac tickets like "fix #1234" to become "fix https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/1234; with git filter-branch -f --msg-filter 'python /home/even/rewrite.py' -- trunk where rewrite.py is {{{ import sys

[gdal-dev] GeoPDF with a KML layer and a rotated GeoTIFF layer

Dear all, I try to create a GeoPDF file with 2 layers: 1) Raster layer: a Geotiff image (*lena_rot.tif*) with a ModelTransformationTag model, with respect to EPSG:4326. The image has a rotation angle (~40° wrt to North). 2) Vector layer: the KML file (*rectangle.kml*) contains a single

[gdal-dev] Any good alternative for the Timeline of Trac available in GitHub?

Hi, I see that GDAL is going to move into GitHub. What I will certainly miss it the Timeline of Trac. For a curious reader like me it gives an excellent view to anything that happens in the project. Is it so that the closest to Timeline that GitHub can offer is the Pulse view (for example

Re: [gdal-dev] Trac to GitHub

On lundi 19 mars 2018 14:55:14 CET Tamas Szekeres wrote: > I don't think the trac tickets should be closed automatically. The ticket > owners should decide either to close (with a meaningful comment) or copy > it's variant to github if necessary. > I'm fine with option #2 and #4 and

Re: [gdal-dev] Trac to GitHub

I don't think the trac tickets should be closed automatically. The ticket owners should decide either to close (with a meaningful comment) or copy it's variant to github if necessary. I'm fine with option #2 and #4 and preserving/updating the history would be a plus, but not a necessary

[gdal-dev] Motion: promote GDAL 2.2.4 RC1 for release

Hi, (Combining both RC availability announcement and motion for vote) I have prepared a GDAL/OGR 2.2.4 release candidate. It fixes 42 issues since 2.2.3 Peek up an archive among the following ones (by ascending size): http://download.osgeo.org/gdal/2.2.4/gdal-2.2.4RC1.tar.xz

Re: [gdal-dev] Trac to GitHub

Hi, Adding gdal-dev into the loop to get more feedback. I actually discussed about that with Howard yesterday, and he suggested an even easier and least-effort solution. Do we actually need to migrate the existing Trac ticket database to github ? If not, we could just freeze Trac as read-only