Fernando
Hi,
the geogit module tests are currently blocking the improvement contained in
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-4351
Given that an intention to remove the module from GeoTools has already been
expressed, and that we cannot get a feedback from the people involved in
GeoGit,
I'd say we just
Andrea,
tl;dr: please go ahead
I do not understand why geogit-versioned is still in your build (unless
you are building with -Pgeogit-versioned). I build with -Dall and
geogit-versioned is not built for me (on master). According to the git
logs, Mark kicked geogit-versioned out of the -Dall
As an aside, this exemplifies a principle: unsupported modules cannot
block necessary changes to supported modules and are kicked out of the
build if nobody cares enough to keep them building.
This is my understanding too.
Christian
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies
ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au wrote:
Andrea,
tl;dr: please go ahead
I do not understand why geogit-versioned is still in your build (unless
you are building with -Pgeogit-versioned). I build with -Dall and
geogit-versioned is not built
Oh, I see, the original problem applying the patch was back in January,
before geogit-versioned was removed from the -Dall profile.
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-3986
On 17/12/12 17:32, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
I do not understand why geogit-versioned is still in your build (unless
you
Zsolt
On 17/12/12 17:50, Andrea Aime wrote:
Regardless, the store seems to be in their repo so this change would
likely end up breaking their build.
Ah! They are downstream and consuming GeoTools master artifacts whose
behaviour you are about to change? This is master, where behaviour and
APIs
Hi,
I'm writing this mail to propose we get rid of the net.opengis.wfsv module.
The module was used in conjunction with versioned postgis and the GeoServer
WFSV
module to support versioning on top of WFS.
The thing never got traction and eventually both the postgis versioning in
GeoTools
and the
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies
ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au wrote:
On 17/12/12 17:50, Andrea Aime wrote:
Regardless, the store seems to be in their repo so this change would
likely end up breaking their build.
Ah! They are downstream and consuming GeoTools master
Cool, with no more objections and a +1 from the module maintainer and a
few others I guess I can proceed?
Cheers
Niels
On 12/14/2012 02:37 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be
mailto:ni...@scitus.be wrote:
Okay, I now changed the
Gabriel
I have been working on GEOT-4350 (https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-4350)
(the 2D to 3D work was recast to use a ConcatenatedTransform last weekend,
however that is tripping up some code that wishes to use
mathTransform.inverse(), if available, to post process a geometry.
While simply
That is fine Gabriel, Mark should of removed it when work was stopped, but
wanted to coordinate with you so the work was not lost.
Thanks for removing now, and apologises if communication was haphazard on this
one.
--
Jody Garnett
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 12:50 AM, Gabriel Roldan
Good call Andrea, sorry I missed that one during my cleanup.
--
Jody Garnett
On Monday, 17 December 2012 at 8:17 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing this mail to propose we get rid of the net.opengis.wfsv module.
The module was used in conjunction with versioned postgis and the
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.comwrote:
I have been working on GEOT-4350https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-4350
(the
2D to 3D work was recast to use a ConcatenatedTransform last weekend,
however that is tripping up some code that wishes to use
It does not appear to be required (both in comments and in testing against
Oracle).
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/pull/84
--
Jody Garnett
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 2:07 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com
On 17/12/12 18:58, Niels Charlier wrote:
Cool, with no more objections and a +1 from the module maintainer and a
few others I guess I can proceed?
That depends what you mean by proceed: +1 is for the overarching API
change proposal (which classes are in which modules). In my view, you
should
Thanks, Gabriel. I see you have removed geogit-versioned (and the
dependency in the top-level pom). I do not think it was a problem since
Mark disabled it in September, but it is clearer to have one copy.
Kind regards,
Ben.
On 17/12/12 22:50, Gabriel Roldan wrote:
I'm currently waiting for
+1 - kill it.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.comwrote:
Good call Andrea, sorry I missed that one during my cleanup.
--
Jody Garnett
On Monday, 17 December 2012 at 8:17 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing this mail to propose we get rid of the
20 matches
Mail list logo
