[GRASS5] Re: GRASS releases

I very much agree with Markus!

I am days at most from finishing the new menus for GRASS 5.3

I am using 5.3 all the time with absolutely no problem. Given the recent fixes in the Cygwin version, I think it should be released.

I also agree that 5.7 should be released as wide-release beta for GRASS 6. I haven't used it much over the past few months, as I've been focusing on 5.3 for teaching and menu development. However, I will certainly be switching my use and efforts to 5.7 in the very near future. IMHO, the new vector model gives vectors in GRASS the same high-octane horsepower as the raster model in 5.3. When the last of the (seemingly very few) bugs are ironed out and the GUI finished, it will be a very compelling alternative to any GIS on the market. More people should have a chance to try it out and participate in the beta testing.

A question: given the numbering scheme proposed for the GRASS roadmap, would the final release of what is now GRASS 5.3 be GRASS 5.4 (odd numbers being in-development versions, and even numbers being final released versions)?

Michael Barton

On Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 02:45 AM, grass5-request@grass.itc.it wrote:

From: Markus Neteler <neteler@itc.it>
Date: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:54:38 AM America/Phoenix
To: grass5 developers list <grass5@grass.itc.it>
Subject: [GRASS5] GRASS releases - some remarks

Hello developers,

another time I have received new developed source code
based on GRASS 5.0 - in this case the internationalization
of tcltkgrass and NVIZ.
I feel that we either need a release of 5.3 or that
we should somehow modify the web pages to make clear
that new developments should be at least based
on 5.3 (for vectors: 5.7).
Also, as posted earlier, I received other comments that
without an official release (of 5.3) they would stick
with 5.0.

Sounds a bit unfortunate to me, so let me put again
into discussion the suggestion to publish a 5.3.0 version.

[hey: 5.3 indicates *development*]

Look at the statistics (only HTTP, rsync/FTP not included):
http://grass.itc.it/webalizer/usage_200402.html#TOPURLS

-> Top 10 of 59396 Total URLs By KBytes (Feb 2004)
# hits
1 430 /grass5/binary/linux/grass5.0.3_i686-pc-linux-gnu_bin.tar.gz
2 353 /grass5/binary/windows_cygnus/wingrass_generic/grass5.0.2_i686-pc-cygwin_bin.tar.gz
3 283 /grass5/binary/windows_cygnus/wingrass_xserver/grass5.0.3_i686-pc-cygwin_bin.tar.gz
4 388 /grass5/source/grass-5.0.3_src.tar.gz
5 173 /grass5/binary/mac_os_x/grass5.0.2_powerpc-apple-darwin6.5_bin.tar.bz2
7 104 /grass5/source/grass-5.0.0_src.tar.gz
9 62 /grass5/source/grass-5.0.2_src.tar.gz

I can only see 5.0.x downloads in the TOP10 list.

While the nice features are in 5.7, most developers work in 5.3
and the users download 5.0 :slight_smile:

We should improve the situation and make available at least 5.3
to a wider audience.

Markus

______________________________
Michael Barton, Professor & Curator
Department of Anthropology
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
USA

voice: 480-965-6262; fax: 480-965-7671

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 11:36:45AM -0700, Michael Barton wrote:

I am days at most from finishing the new menus for GRASS 5.3

Cool.

I also agree that 5.7 should be released as wide-release beta for GRASS
6.

Yes 5.7 also needs to be made accessible.
(Again I'm not sure if we should call it 6 in the end,
but that is a decision later on the road as long as we do not
announce it to be 6 early on.)

A question: given the numbering scheme proposed for the GRASS roadmap,
would the final release of what is now GRASS 5.3 be GRASS 5.4 (odd
numbers being in-development versions, and even numbers being final
released versions)?

Yes: 5.4.0 would be stable.
I suggest to switch to this number,
  if we had 5.3.x releases.,
  we are sure that all 5.0.x people can savely migrate to 5.3.x