Darn, I always end up replying to the poster instead of the list =)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/8/18 Bernhard Reiter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bernhard@intevation.de">bernhard@intevation.de</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Sure, we can have a seperate webpage as soon as we want to.<br>
Should be make it a subwebpage to Thuban or would you want a new<br>
entry for wald? The latter gives you the chance to seperate pyshapelib even<br>
more, have its own SCM, webpage, developer list and so on...<br>
<div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br>Well, maybe if we do it, we should do it properly?<br><br>Though
if possible, I would like to see the svn history retained. I know it
can be done (been there before), but it is a bit of command line work,
and some patience =)<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
> I don't understand though how b lowers the risk as you need to do more<br>
> work before the release ...<br>
<br>
</div>I've meant there is more pressure to get Thuban and pyshapelib out then,<br>
though of course there is more work. This addresses the danger that we manage<br>
to get 1.2.2 out, but fail to get out 1.2.3 with pyshapelib afterwards.</blockquote><div><br>OK, I get it now. For me it's all the same. Once it gets in the trunk, I'm sure it's bound to be released _some_ day =)<br>
</div></div><br>