Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

g > [mailto:gdal-dev-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Even Rouault Sent: > Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:37 PM > To: gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > Subject: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan > > Hi, > > GDAL 1.10 was released about one year ago, so it is time to think about

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Even Rouault Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:37 PM To: gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org Subject: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan Hi, GDAL 1.10 was released about one year ago, so it is time to think about the next release. I think we should just call it 1.11 given that

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

Le vendredi 28 mars 2014 17:27:23, Vincent Mora a écrit : > On 28/03/2014 16:13, Kyle Shannon wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Vincent Mora wrote: > >> On 28/03/2014 10:06, Even Rouault wrote: > A good plan! Especially when including the Walk driver > >> > >> And the WAsP driver

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

On 28/03/2014 16:13, Kyle Shannon wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Vincent Mora wrote: On 28/03/2014 10:06, Even Rouault wrote: A good plan! Especially when including the Walk driver And the WAsP driver ? Vincent, The trunk will be 1.11.0, the WAsP driver will be included. Shall I

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Vincent Mora wrote: > On 28/03/2014 10:06, Even Rouault wrote: >>> >>> A good plan! Especially when including the Walk driver > > And the WAsP driver ? > > > ___ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > http:/

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

Even Rouault mines-paris.org> writes: > Any opinion about that plan ? +1 -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

On 28/03/2014 10:06, Even Rouault wrote: A good plan! Especially when including the Walk driver And the WAsP driver ? ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

Hi, Adding VS2012/VS2013 support in GISInternals is a separate action (not included in the release plan). In fact I'm not keen to add further build instances to the current build server installation which has a pretty limited set of resources. However I've got a promise to have a new VM on a blad

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

+1 Daniel On 14-03-25 5:37 PM, Even Rouault wrote: Hi, GDAL 1.10 was released about one year ago, so it is time to think about the next release. I think we should just call it 1.11 given that there are no major architectural changes (although there have been non trivial changes in RAT manageme

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

> A good plan! Especially when including the Walk driver > > I have a minor fix on ogr sqlite driver. Please refer to ticket #5426: > http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/5426 > > Please check if it can be included in the release. Done. Thanks > > Thanks, > > Xian > Walkinfo Technology Corp., Ltd. >

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

A good plan! Especially when including the Walk driver I have a minor fix on ogr sqlite driver. Please refer to ticket #5426: http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/5426 Please check if it can be included in the release. Thanks, Xian Walkinfo Technology Corp., Ltd. mailto:chenx...@walkinfo.com.cn

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

Selon Olivier BARTHELEMY : I've fixed the one in adrgdataset.cpp. gifalloc.c, degrib18, hdf-eos are third-party code "imported" into GDAL tree. So the best way would be to fix the issues upstream (if fix is actually needed) and then downstream into GDAL. I've analyze errors reported in rasterlited

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

Here is what cppcheck 1.64 reports as 'errors' in gdal-1.10.1: [frmts\adrg\adrgdataset.cpp:1071]: (error) Memory leak: TILEINDEX [frmts\coasp\coasp_dataset.cpp:199]: (error) Undefined behavior: Variable 'pszItemValue' is used as parameter and destination in s[n]printf(). [frmts\dted\dted_create.c:

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

Hi Olivier, If you could share with us the errors that have been reported (and the options you have used to pass cppcheck on GDAL source), that would be a good contribution. Even better if you can submit a patch to fix them ;-) Not saying they shouldn't be fixed, but I don't see that as a blocker

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

I think you should take a look at what cppcheck finds when scanning GDAL source before the next release. There are a few tens of small errors. Mostly, small leaks in particalr cases. Not very important errors, but that ought to be fixed before doing an release in my opinion 2014-03-26 8:49 GMT+01

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

+1 for adding VS2013 binaries in GISInternals Thanks, Paul *Paul Meems * Release manager, configuration manager and forum moderator of MapWindow GIS. www.mapwindow.org Owner of MapWindow.nl - Support for Dutch speaking users. www.mapwindow.nl *Join us at the MapWindow GIS Conference 2014

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

Hi Adding Visual Studio 2012 2013 in GISInternals for Gdal 1.11 should be great too. Xav Le 25 mars 2014 22:57, "Tamas Szekeres" a écrit : > That sounds good to me. > > Best regards, > > Tamas > > > > 2014-03-25 22:37 GMT+01:00 Even Rouault : > >> Hi, >> >> GDAL 1.10 was released about one year

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

Good plan! Best regards, Dmitry 26.03.2014 1:57, Tamas Szekeres ?: That sounds good to me. Best regards, Tamas 2014-03-25 22:37 GMT+01:00 Even Rouault >: Hi, GDAL 1.10 was released about one year ago, so it is time to think about the

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

That sounds good to me. Best regards, Tamas 2014-03-25 22:37 GMT+01:00 Even Rouault : > Hi, > > GDAL 1.10 was released about one year ago, so it is time to think about > the next > release. I think we should just call it 1.11 given that there are no major > architectural changes (although the

[gdal-dev] GDAL 1.11 release plan

Hi, GDAL 1.10 was released about one year ago, so it is time to think about the next release. I think we should just call it 1.11 given that there are no major architectural changes (although there have been non trivial changes in RAT management and for multiple geometry field support, but that on