http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GSIP+27+-+Long+freeze+handling+procedures
(two gsip 27...) This one seems accepted and complete as well?
Mind, this will influence the cut of GS 2.0 RC1 (turning trunk into a branch and leaving trunk open for the resource/view split, which seems
like a good thing to me?)
I would say move all those that don't have any resources backing them to deferred status. Maybe stating somewhere that they are welcome ideas, just that they lack funding and/or a developer to work on them.
Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi,
I was looking into the active GSIP and think some cleanup is in order:
http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GSIP+27+-+Long+freeze+handling+procedures
(two gsip 27...) This one seems accepted and complete as well?
Mind, this will influence the cut of GS 2.0 RC1 (turning trunk into a branch and leaving trunk open for the resource/view split, which seems
like a good thing to me?)
I am the person pushing for this; although we have talked about it
previously. The proposal is being constructed and that process seems
stalled on what may be a technicality - writing down exactly what
files need to be changed.
For this proposal to be successful I we do not have to re-organize the
project into LGPL and GPL modules; if we can identify the interfaces
that we ask other to implement - and place the classpath exception on
those files we should be good.
