If you're interested, I've merged the current trunk with the WIP-pyshapelib-bramz branch into something that seems to work (at first glance =). You'll find it as r2795 of the WIP-pyhapelib-Unicode branch, to make things complicated (*) =)
<br><br>(*) In reality, I will use this as my starting point for further development.<br><br>Bramz. It should be possible to back port _that_ particular revision to the trunk fairly easily.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 29/11/2007, <b class="gmail_sendername">Bernhard Reiter</b> <<a href="mailto:bernhard@intevation.de">bernhard@intevation.de</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Monday 26 November 2007 12:24, Bernhard Reiter wrote:<br>> I think we should prepare for a christmas tree release of Thuban.<br><br>I am thinking about how to call this release, what is your opinion.<br>Candidates I have come up with:
<br><br>1.2.1<br>1.2.1beta1<br>1.3.0<br>1.3.0beta1<br><br>There are arguments for all candidates:<br>1.2.1 would be suitable, because I think we have fixed a couple of problems<br>since 1.2.0, so everybody should better try
1.2.1. Also it seems currently we<br>do not have that many users so might not need to care for too many branches<br>and want to encourage them to test things.<br><br>1.2.1beta1 would be suitable because we know there are some problems with the
<br>current state of Thuban. Notably with the encoding issues. Also we do have a<br>completely new pyshapelib implementation which has not seen that much testing<br>with Thuban, yet and could use some.<br><br>1.3.0 would be a way out and revive the "experimental" branch being an odd
<br>number. What speaks against it is that there are not that many changes in<br>Thuban, so we might do inflation here and also there is no point in using<br>1.2.0 anymoree with 1.3.0 out there.<br><br>We could consider 1.3.0beta1
if we do the complete overhaul to internal<br>unicode yet.<br><br>I am mainly undecided between 1.2.1beta1 and 1.2.1.<br>With Free Software it is a good tradition to indicate the state of the<br>software and Thuban is "beta" right now, with somethings moving fast and
<br>others not deeply tested. On the other hand, if someone would use 1.2.0<br>instead of 1.2.1beta1 because of the believe it would be more stable, it<br>would be bad as well.<br><br>Opinions?<br><br>Bernhard<br>--<br>Managing Director - Owner:
<a href="http://www.intevation.net">www.intevation.net</a> (Free Software Company)<br>Germany Coordinator: <a href="http://fsfeurope.org">fsfeurope.org</a>. Coordinator: <a href="http://www.Kolab-Konsortium.com">www.Kolab-Konsortium.com
</a>.<br>Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998<br>Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Thuban-devel mailing list
<br><a href="mailto:Thuban-devel@intevation.de">Thuban-devel@intevation.de</a><br><a href="https://intevation.de/mailman/listinfo/thuban-devel">https://intevation.de/mailman/listinfo/thuban-devel</a><br><br><br></blockquote>
</div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>hi, i'm a signature viruz, plz set me as your signature and help me spread :)