On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:16:45AM +0200, grass-dev@grass.itc.it wrote:
code P item #450, was opened at 2007-07-26 22:35
Summary: upgrades r.in.xyz for additional aggregation functions
...
I have not deeply checked the math & nodes logic but suggest for inclusion in CVS/HEAD shortly after 6.3.0 final is released for maximum testing.
Hamish,
the last comment is unclear to me. Why is CVS HEAD involved in
the 6.3.0 final release? Do you think we should re-do the branch
from HEAD at some point? So far that wasn't our practice...
> code P item #450, was opened at 2007-07-26 22:35
> Summary: upgrades r.in.xyz for additional aggregation functions
...
Hamish:
> I have not deeply checked the math & nodes logic but suggest for inclusion
> in CVS/HEAD shortly after 6.3.0 final is released for maximum testing.
Markus:
the last comment is unclear to me. Why is CVS HEAD involved in
the 6.3.0 final release? Do you think we should re-do the branch
from HEAD at some point? So far that wasn't our practice...
I mean that I think the patch should go into the module, but I think it needs
some months of testing, and so it should wait until 6.3.0 is out the door. ie
we do nothing about it for a little while. No special requests to do anything
with CVS/HEAD or release branches.
That was written under the probably mistaken assumption that 6_3_0 was done as
a tag and not a branch in CVS.
Hamish
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
> > code P item #450, was opened at 2007-07-26 22:35
> > Summary: upgrades r.in.xyz for additional aggregation functions
> ...
Hamish:
> > I have not deeply checked the math & nodes logic but suggest for inclusion
> > in CVS/HEAD shortly after 6.3.0 final is released for maximum testing.
Markus:
> the last comment is unclear to me. Why is CVS HEAD involved in
> the 6.3.0 final release? Do you think we should re-do the branch
> from HEAD at some point? So far that wasn't our practice...
I mean that I think the patch should go into the module, but I think it needs
some months of testing, and so it should wait until 6.3.0 is out the door. ie
we do nothing about it for a little while. No special requests to do anything
with CVS/HEAD or release branches.
That was written under the probably mistaken assumption that 6_3_0 was done as
a tag and not a branch in CVS.
There is a branch tag "releasebranch_6_3" and a non-branch tag
"release_20071024_grass_6_3_0RC1".
Most changes should still be committed to the head as per usual.
> There is a branch tag "releasebranch_6_3" and a non-branch tag
> "release_20071024_grass_6_3_0RC1".
>
Is the second one in the wrong place (I wonder how it could
have happened)
?