Navid Taheri (
https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?accountId=5d3b3e7f8a98b20c2beaf15c
) *created* an issue
GeoServer (
https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOS?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiYjg5ZjhlYmU5MjBhNGE1OTkwYzFlOTRkMGRmZGRlYTYiLCJwIjoiaiJ9
) / Bug (
Perhaps I am not understanding the request, is the geonode team
depending on specific community builds from
https://build.geoserver.org/geoserver/2.18.x/ ?
If so ... we ran out of space recently and cleaned up a lot of stuff :D
As for use of SNAPSHOT and submodule geonetwork was perhaps not the
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:42 PM Jody Garnett wrote:
> I would ask that the geonode folks tag the release they need as a patch
> release (even just to the nexus repo).
>
Separate project, we're not really in a position to "ask" :-D
> Depending on a snapshot is a terrible practice, and if you
GeoTools / GeoServer PMC meeting - 2021-12-07Attending
-
Torben Barsballe
-
Andrea Aime
-
Jukka Rahkonnen
Actions from last meeting:
-
N/A
Agenda
1.
December release, 2.19.4
2.
Keeping older builds running for six more months
3.
Reformatter
No problem keeping a branch building longer if it is active, but it should
build towards a patch release please.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 6:42 AM Jody Garnett wrote:
> I would ask that the geonode folks tag the release they need as a patch
> release (even just to the nexus repo). Depending on a
I would ask that the geonode folks tag the release they need as a patch
release (even just to the nexus repo). Depending on a snapshot is a
terrible practice, and if you must it should be handled with a git sub
module.
The geonetwork folks depend on a snapshot revision be having a git sub
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 12:07 PM Ian Turton wrote:
> +0 for me
>
> In the longer term should we switch to a yearly release cycle instead of a
> 6 monthly one? One complaint I hear relatively often is that releases are
> hard to keep up with so we ignore them
>
I understand that position. Let me
+0 for me
In the longer term should we switch to a yearly release cycle instead of a
6 monthly one? One complaint I hear relatively often is that releases are
hard to keep up with so we ignore them
Ian
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 09:50, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> I thought the 2.18.x series builds were a
I thought the 2.18.x series builds were a goner, but Alessandro made me
notice that,
while they are no more in the "geoserver" tab, they are still in the "all
builds" one:
[image: image.png]
So it would be just a matter of re-enabling them (and the corresponding
GT/GWC ones).
Cheers
Andrea
On
Hi,
here is a topic for today's PSC meeting (not feeling all that well, might
not make it to the meeting).
In GeoSolutions we found that we need to run custom builds of the 2.18.x
series, mostly because of its relationship with GeoNode. GeoNode tends to
stay a little behind in terms of GeoServer
After sending the mail I found the newer version of the plugin emits some
pretty annoying logging.
It has been fixed on the latest releases, requiring Java 11, while the
series supporting Java 8 seems to be dead by now... options I see:
- The logging fix is trivial, I could apply the patch on
11 matches
Mail list logo
