[Geotools-devel] JDK 11: GeoTools restructure to address split-package restriction

Updated spreadsheet plan, reviewed with team, and sent the updated proposal to geotools-devel - repackage plan is nice and solid - splitting up gt-main is technically feasible - asking geotools-devel if we should d

[Geotools-devel] repackaging the geotools library updates and PMC feedback needed

Sent a proposal out with the high level plan for this week - it has not been approved: https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/Restructure-GeoTools-into-Jigsaw-modules Andrea had a question to see if we could break gt-main into smaller modules (which is addressed bellow). Now that we are into t

Re: [Geotools-devel] [Geoserver-devel] Backporting GEOT-6119 to GT 20.x and related GEOS-8935 to GS 2.14.x

+1 Cheers Andrea On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:39 AM Ian Turton wrote: > +1 sounds fine to me > > Ian > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 10:08, Mauro Bartolomeoli < > mauro.bartolome...@geo-solutions.it> wrote: > >> Hi, any objections if I backport WFS coordinates formatting new options >> to 20.x / 2.14.

Re: [Geotools-devel] [Geoserver-devel] Backporting GEOT-6119 to GT 20.x and related GEOS-8935 to GS 2.14.x

+1 sounds fine to me Ian On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 10:08, Mauro Bartolomeoli < mauro.bartolome...@geo-solutions.it> wrote: > Hi, any objections if I backport WFS coordinates formatting new options to > 20.x / 2.14.x versions? > > -- > > Regards, > > Mauro Bartolomeoli > > == > GeoServer Professiona

[Geotools-devel] Backporting GEOT-6119 to GT 20.x and related GEOS-8935 to GS 2.14.x

Hi, any objections if I backport WFS coordinates formatting new options to 20.x / 2.14.x versions? -- Regards, Mauro Bartolomeoli == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Dott. Mauro Bartolomeoli @mauro_bart Technical Lead GeoSo

Re: [Geotools-devel] SWT module

> Is it a community module and you are the maintainer - so you can dump it if > you like. > > I had some hopes of making a bridge for uDig so it could use the renderer > without depending on JAI using this module; so I would ask you to keep it if > this is only a matter of warnings (and not fail