It looks to me like this RFC commits the project to spending more energy on language bindings for the next few versions. I'm not enthusiastic about that, but am not super opposed. So I'm a -0.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 1:58 PM Kurt Schwehr <schw...@gmail.com> wrote: > +0 KurtS > > I have some vague undefined unease about this. Even's comments help > diminish that some. I don't see strong enough arguments for me to vote for > it. > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:03 PM Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Idan, >> >> >> Motion: >> >> Adopt RFC 78: gdal-utils package >> <https://github.com/talos-gis/gdal/blob/Branch_rfc78_py_modules/gdal/doc/source/development/rfc/rfc78_gdal_utils_package.rst> >> (formatted >> version). >> >> +1. >> >> Sorry for the late reply. >> >> I'd like some efforts on the documentation front regarding this new >> addition. The new doc page hhttps://gdal.org/api/python.html (initiated >> from the swig/python/README.rst. not sure how we could avoid duplication of >> content in the tree. perhaps some inclusion of README.rst from the docs) >> would need to be enriched with details from the RFC, to explain how the 2 >> pypi packages relate, and the potential issues in the workflows you >> indicate. >> >> The HOWTO-RELEASE procedure will likely need to be adjusted. >> >> I'll appreciate too that you actively support users in github issues / >> email traffic on this topic once this is deployed in a release. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Even >> > -- Sean Gillies
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
