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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
