Dear PSC,
here is a proposal to add improvements done with some of the supporting organizations of version 4 to GeoNetwork https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/pull/6188
This CFV ask 2 questions:
Do you agree to merge this work?
If merged, do you think it should be a version 4.0.7 or 4.2.0 ?
Looking forward to your vote.
Francois
Hi François,
Thanks for the PR.
Did you test your branch uppon main ? We are favor of the merge but we would like to avoid that it brings unexpected regressions, as we are planning to deploy it for geocat.ch.
The idea is to be sure that the merge will be safe and that it is almost the same as your fork which is tested in production.
In that condition, I am favor for the merge.
+1 for me.
I would personally stick to 4.0.x branch.
Cheers
camptocamp
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
BY OPEN SOURCE EXPERTS
Florent Gravin
Technical Leader - Architect
+33 4 58 48 20 36
+1 on merging - good improvements Francois, esp the batch update with regexp via the database.
I don’t have a preference on whether version is 4.0.7 or 4.2.0 - happy to go with the consensus on that.
Thanks Francois!
Simon
From: Francois Prunayre fx.prunayre@anonymised.com
Sent: 04 March 2022 18:00
To: Emanuele Tajariol e.tajariol@anonymised.com; Florent Gravin florent.gravin@anonymised.com; Jeroen Ticheler <Jeroen.Ticheler@anonymised.com…>; Jose Benito Garcia Segura jose.garcia@anonymised.com; Paul van Genuchten genuchten@anonymised.com; Pigot, Simon (O&A, Hobart) Simon.Pigot@anonymised.com; Jo Cook jocook@anonymised.com
Cc: Devel geonetwork-devel@lists.sourceforge.net geonetwork-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: CFV / Version 4 improvements
Dear PSC,
here is a proposal to add improvements done with some of the supporting organizations of version 4 to GeoNetwork https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/pull/6188
This CFV ask 2 questions:
Do you agree to merge this work?
If merged, do you think it should be a version 4.0.7 or 4.2.0 ?
Looking forward to your vote.
Francois
Hi guys,
I am back from Covid, I see no follow up on this important topic.
Could you please vote for the proposal please ?
I think it’s important to be more reactive, it’s a sign that the community is healthy, the project is active and that the core developers work hand in hand in a common direction 
Thanks and have a nice day.
Ps @Jeroen Ticheler what is the state of the monthly PSC meeting ? Do you take the lead on this or not ? Thank you !
camptocamp
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
BY OPEN SOURCE EXPERTS
Florent Gravin
Technical Leader - Architect
+33 4 58 48 20 36
Apologies, I missed this. +1 for it to be merged, +0 on whether it should be part of 4.0.7 or 4.2.0.
What are the implications of it becoming 4.2.0- will we continue to support version 3 installs? That’s pretty important for me.
Thanks
Jo
Jo Cook
t:+44 7930 524 155/twitter:@archaeogeek
Please note that currently I do not work on Friday afternoons. For urgent responses at that time, please visit support.astuntechnology.com or phone our office on 01372 744009
+1 from me for the proposal.
I’ll follow up on the PSC planning when I’m back from traveling in April.
Cheers,
Jeroen
Jeroen Ticheler
Mobile: +31681286572
E-mail: jeroen.ticheler@anonymised.com
Veenderweg 13
6721 WD Bennekom
The Netherlands
Tel: +31318416664
On 21 Mar 2022, 11:43 +0200, Jo Cook <jocook@anonymised.com>, wrote:
Apologies, I missed this. +1 for it to be merged, +0 on whether it should be part of 4.0.7 or 4.2.0.
What are the implications of it becoming 4.2.0- will we continue to support version 3 installs? That's pretty important for me.
Thanks
Jo
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 9:36 AM Florent Gravin <florent.gravin@anonymised.com.> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I am back from Covid, I see no follow up on this important topic.
> > Could you please vote for the proposal please ?
> >
> > I think it's important to be more reactive, it's a sign that the community is healthy, the project is active and that the core developers work hand in hand in a common direction
> > Thanks and have a nice day.
> >
> > Ps @anonymised.com Ticheler what is the state of the monthly PSC meeting ? Do you take the lead on this or not ? Thank you !
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:27 AM Pigot, Simon (O&A, Hobart) <Simon.Pigot@anonymised.com> wrote:
> > > > +1 on merging - good improvements Francois, esp the batch update with regexp via the database.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have a preference on whether version is 4.0.7 or 4.2.0 - happy to go with the consensus on that.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Francois!
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > > From: Francois Prunayre <fx.prunayre@anonymised.com>
> > > > Sent: 04 March 2022 18:00
> > > > To: Emanuele Tajariol <e.tajariol@anonymised.com>; Florent Gravin <florent.gravin@anonymised.com>; Jeroen Ticheler <Jeroen.Ticheler@anonymised.com>; Jose Benito Garcia Segura <jose.garcia@anonymised.com>; Paul van Genuchten <genuchten@anonymised.com..37...>; Pigot, Simon (O&A, Hobart) <Simon.Pigot@anonymised.com>; Jo Cook <jocook@anonymised.com>
> > > > Cc: Devel geonetwork-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <geonetwork-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> > > > Subject: CFV / Version 4 improvements
> > > >
> > > > Dear PSC,
> > > >
> > > > here is a proposal to add improvements done with some of the supporting organizations of version 4 to GeoNetwork Version 4 improvements by fxprunayre · Pull Request #6188 · geonetwork/core-geonetwork · GitHub
> > > >
> > > > This CFV ask 2 questions:
> > > > * Do you agree to merge this work?
> > > >
> > > > * If merged, do you think it should be a version 4.0.7 or 4.2.0 ?
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to your vote.
> > > > Francois
> >
> >
> > --
> > camptocamp
> > INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
> > BY OPEN SOURCE EXPERTS
> >
> > Florent Gravin
> > Technical Leader - Architect
> > +33 4 58 48 20 36--
Jo Cook
t:+44 7930 524 155/twitter:@archaeogeek
Please note that currently I do not work on Friday afternoons. For urgent responses at that time, please visit support.astuntechnology.com or phone our office on 01372 744009--
Sign up to our mailing list for updates on news, products, conferences, events and trainingAstun Technology Ltd, 120 Manor Green Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8LN, UK t:+44 1372 744 009 w: astuntechnology.com twitter:@astuntech
iShare - enterprise geographic intelligence platform
GeoServer, PostGIS and QGIS training
SupportCompany registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: 120 Manor Green Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8LN VAT no. 864201149.
Hi Florent,
The branch was aligned with main regularly. I’ll align it again this week to fix the new conflicts.
About regressions, there is always a small amount of risk. But even simple approved change could introduce regressions eg. https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/pull/6147. The branch also fix quite old regression added by geocat.ch work eg. https://github.com/titellus/core-geonetwork/pull/39
So the more important thing is to detect as soon as possible and have maintainers to fix the problem.
Did you start your tests for geocat.ch and notice any issues ?
About the numbering, I would stay on a 4.0.7 as I don’t think anyone will have resources to backport changes from 4.2 to 4.0 and to 3.12 branches. Also it does not look that anyone really needs a 4.0.6 as it is now (?) - this PR does not change the database model, the record view is slightly different but that’s probably the only change a default user will notice.
Cheers.
Francois
Le ven. 4 mars 2022 à 10:15, Florent Gravin <florent.gravin@anonymised.com> a écrit :
Hi François,
Thanks for the PR.
Did you test your branch uppon main ? We are favor of the merge but we would like to avoid that it brings unexpected regressions, as we are planning to deploy it for geocat.ch.
The idea is to be sure that the merge will be safe and that it is almost the same as your fork which is tested in production.
In that condition, I am favor for the merge.
+1 for me.I would personally stick to 4.0.x branch.
Cheers
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 8:01 AM Francois Prunayre <fx.prunayre@anonymised.com> wrote:
Dear PSC,
here is a proposal to add improvements done with some of the supporting organizations of version 4 to GeoNetwork https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/pull/6188
This CFV ask 2 questions:
Do you agree to merge this work?
If merged, do you think it should be a version 4.0.7 or 4.2.0 ?
Looking forward to your vote.
Francois–
camptocamp
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
BY OPEN SOURCE EXPERTSFlorent Gravin
Technical Leader - Architect
+33 4 58 48 20 36
Ok thanks all for voting.
Let’s merge it then, and let’s stick to 4.0.7, we don’t need useless maintenance work for intermediary minor versions.
Cheers
camptocamp
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
BY OPEN SOURCE EXPERTS
Florent Gravin
Technical Leader - Architect
+33 4 58 48 20 36