lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:04:29 GMT
My point exactly.

Especially with the NTS integration we have for Spatial, I can't really
provide you with 4 additional assemblies which are required for the NTS
version of the spatial contrib only because you wanted the FVH

Quick fix would be to have the non-NTS version in the one contrib-ball, and
issue a special nuget package for the NTS version, with nuget dependencies
and all

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Christopher Currens <
currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:

> There seemed to be a leaning[1] toward[2] a single[3] package[4] for
> contrib.  I don't remember that discussion at all, which means I probably
> didn't read it. :X   There are some good points raised in for both sides.
>  I'm still on the side of a separate package for each, simply because if I
> want the FVH, I really only want the FVH, not spatial, regex queries, etc.
>
> [1]
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-dev/201109.mbox/browser
> [2]
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-dev/201109.mbox/%3C006701cc78b0%2486165710%2492430530%24%40com%3E
> [3]
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-dev/201109.mbox/%3C3FCEA726F7253C4FAC829227E83E051405BE2D0398%40USPHO-MXVS05.amer.thermo.com%3E
> [4]
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-dev/201112.mbox/%3CCA+QKZbWH26b7Oq0TsK5qgFSF1hndL9AKrQZ6s7nhxze3oxKGgg@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >  I think that we decided that was easier at the time, there was
> > definitely a conversation about it. Ill try to search the dev logs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Windows Phone
> >  ------------------------------
> > From: Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > Sent: 8/23/2012 11:34 AM
> > To: Christopher Currens
> > Cc: Prescott Nasser; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
> >
> >  Why do we have a single nuget package for all contribs in the first
> > place?
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, the single nuget contrib package will cause problems, because
> > > both Contrib.Spatial and Contrib.Spatial.NTS use the same namespace...
> > >
> > > If we appended NTS to the namespace, then it would break the tests,
> > > because we run the same test code for both, and would then need to
> > > update all the using namespace definitions.  It seems the best
> > > solution would be to have a separate nuget packaged for it.
> > >
> > > How should I go about this?  Should I try and separate it out (I might
> > > as well do more or all of them, then)?  In theory, it should be pretty
> > > easy, except for all of the new descriptions that would have  to be
> > > written for each nuspec :/
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > We have a single nuget contrib package atm.
> > > >
> > > > For the naming convention thing Chris - might as well get that in. I
> > > have a
> > > > few hours window in about 4 hours to redo the nuget stuff.
> > > >
> > > > Dev users - this was supposed to be a quick back and forth but grew a
> > > bit,
> > > > it should have been on the dev list. My apologies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my Windows Phone
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > Sent: 8/23/2012 10:42 AM
> > > > To: Christopher Currens
> > > > Cc: Prescott Nasser
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
> > > >
> > > > If there is a package for each contrib, let's have NTS as another
> > > package.
> > > > For that package, add NetTopologySuite 1.12 and GeoAPI as nuget
> > > dependencies
> > > > (I think the GeoAPI one will be derived from NTS anyway)
> > > >
> > > > I think we should also release with LUCENENET-503 in
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Christopher Currens
> > > > <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Should I add the NTS spatial to the Spatial nuget package or create a
> > > > separate Spatial.NTS nuget package?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Christopher Currens
> > > > <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Yeah.  I'll get all that done and send out another email when its
> > > >> finished.  Should I get LUCENENET-503 in there as well, or only put
> > > >> that in trunk?  It's just a naming consistency thing.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > itamar@code972.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>> Cool, thanks
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Can you also handle updating the assemblies in both trunk and
> branch?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Christopher Currens
> > > >>> <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out how to
> properly
> > > >>>> push to github (I have no idea why, I've done it in the past!),
> but
> > I
> > > >>>> made a pull request with configuration changes to allow it
to
> build
> > in
> > > >>>> .NET 3.5 and 4.0.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Now, I'm going to push changes to the SVN that changes all
of the
> > > >>>> assembly metadata from 2.9.x to 3.0.3
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Christopher Currens
> > > >>>> <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> > If you want to target multiple frameworks, each framework
> version
> > > has
> > > >>>> > to live in each configuration property group.  You have
> > > >>>> > TargetFrameworkVersion v3.5 set in the *35 configurations,
but
> > > there's
> > > >>>> > a global v4.0 that's overriding it.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > I actually have changes that fix this, I just have to
figure out
> > how
> > > >>>> > to use git properly. :)
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >>>> > <itamar@code972.com>
> > > >>>> > wrote:
> > > >>>> >> Pushed my latest changes to github. Some 3.5 compilation
> setting
> > > must
> > > >>>> >> be off
> > > >>>> >> - can you have a look?
> > > >>>> >>
> > > >>>> >> Maybe we should update all contrib metadata to say
3.0.3?
> > > >>>> >>
> > > >>>> >>
> > > >>>> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Christopher Currens
> > > >>>> >> <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>> The binaries in lib/spatial4n/NET35 are actually
targeting the
> > 4.0
> > > >>>> >>> runtime, so Visual Studio and MSBuild refuses
to compile them,
> > > >>>> >>> saying
> > > >>>> >>> it can't find those types.  I pushed .NET 35
binaries to the
> > 3.0.3
> > > >>>> >>> branch, and I just noticed that you updated the
binaries in
> > Trunk
> > > >>>> >>> about a half hour ago.  Right now Trunk fails
for me and 3.0.3
> > > >>>> >>> succeeds.  I'm assuming those include changes
to the binaries
> in
> > > >>>> >>> trunk
> > > >>>> >>> aren't present in the Spatial4n repo on github,
so I wasn't
> > going
> > > to
> > > >>>> >>> try and rebuild them for the 3.0.3 branch.
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>> There's another issue I found while messing around
with this
> (I
> > > >>>> >>> actually was starting work on LUCENENET-503 when
I ran into
> > this),
> > > >>>> >>> we
> > > >>>> >>> have a lot of contrib assemblies with old assembly
metadata.
> > Some
> > > >>>> >>> contrib assemblies are marked 2.9.2, some 2.9.4,
and a few
> > others.
> > > >>>> >>> I'll be pushing those changes to the 3.0.3 branch,
which
> should
> > be
> > > >>>> >>> fine considering they're just metadata changes.
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >>>> >>> <itamar@code972.com>
> > > >>>> >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> >>> > I just committed a few changes that should
resolve some of
> > those
> > > >>>> >>> > issues.
> > > >>>> >>> >
> > > >>>> >>> > .NET 4.0 compilation goes smooth, but I
can't get 3.5 to
> > > properly
> > > >>>> >>> > compile
> > > >>>> >>> > and test, not sure why. Will appreciate
it if you can have a
> > > look.
> > > >>>> >>> >
> > > >>>> >>> > Chris just pushed some changes to the branch,
not sure if
> they
> > > are
> > > >>>> >>> > related?
> > > >>>> >>> > CC'ed him
> > > >>>> >>> >
> > > >>>> >>> > No problem re the lib folder. If the contribs
are split up
> and
> > > >>>> >>> > each
> > > >>>> >>> > will
> > > >>>> >>> > have its own nuget package we can have 2
for spatial - one
> > > regular
> > > >>>> >>> > and
> > > >>>> >>> > the
> > > >>>> >>> > other NTS, while the latter will depend
on GeoAPI and
> > > >>>> >>> > NetTopologySuite
> > > >>>> >>> > to
> > > >>>> >>> > automate this a bit.
> > > >>>> >>> >
> > > >>>> >>> > I can also put Spatial4n on nuget, but I
think it's a bit
> too
> > > >>>> >>> > early
> > > >>>> >>> > for
> > > >>>> >>> > that
> > > >>>> >>> >
> > > >>>> >>> > Any way, I'm good with releasing it now
> > > >>>> >>> >
> > > >>>> >>> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Prescott
Nasser
> > > >>>> >>> > <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
> > > >>>> >>> > wrote:
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Sorry, wasn't quite clear. Two things.
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> First the project didn't reference the
lib/spatial4n stuff
> > so I
> > > >>>> >>> >> included
> > > >>>> >>> >> those references - but I wanted to confirm
with you that
> that
> > > was
> > > >>>> >>> >> right. -
> > > >>>> >>> >> you've confirmed that is right.
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> The second issue is that the lib folder
is we cannot
> > > distribute,
> > > >>>> >>> >> nor
> > > >>>> >>> >> can
> > > >>>> >>> >> we distribute any files that we don't
have source code for
> in
> > > our
> > > >>>> >>> >> svn.
> > > >>>> >>> >> So as
> > > >>>> >>> >> it stands, I could compile the spatial
project, but I when
> I
> > > put
> > > >>>> >>> >> the
> > > >>>> >>> >> nuget
> > > >>>> >>> >> package up, I will have to add spatial4n
as a dependency.
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> This isn't a problem, I just wanted
to make sure it was
> clear
> > > and
> > > >>>> >>> >> that's
> > > >>>> >>> >> your intention
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Sent from my Windows Phone
> > > >>>> >>> >> ________________________________
> > > >>>> >>> >> From: Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >>>> >>> >> Sent: 8/23/2012 2:20 AM
> > > >>>> >>> >> To: Prescott Nasser
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget
Packages
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> I'm not sure I'm following, all the
spatial4n stuff is
> > already
> > > >>>> >>> >> committed
> > > >>>> >>> >> to lib/spatial4n. What was the problem
and what did you
> fix?
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> The DLLs there are used twice - Spatial4n.Core
from
> > > >>>> >>> >> Contrib.Spatial,
> > > >>>> >>> >> and
> > > >>>> >>> >> Spatial4n.Core.NTS + GeoAPI + NetTopologySuite
+
> > > PowerCollection
> > > >>>> >>> >> from
> > > >>>> >>> >> Contrib.Spatial.NTS (the one with polygon
support
> enabled). I
> > > >>>> >>> >> hope
> > > >>>> >>> >> that
> > > >>>> >>> >> makes sense now.
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Prescott
Nasser
> > > >>>> >>> >> <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
> > > >>>> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Hey Itamar - I'm trying to compile the
contrib packages - I
> > ran
> > > >>>> >>> >> into an
> > > >>>> >>> >> error. I solved it by making sure to
include all the
> > > >>>> >>> >> lib/Spatial4n
> > > >>>> >>> >> packages
> > > >>>> >>> >> - does that sound right to you? I'll
have a few hours
> > tomorrow
> > > to
> > > >>>> >>> >> hopefully
> > > >>>> >>> >> get 3.0.3 Contrib RC2 put on nuget.
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Also, any reason we didn't include all
of these .dll's in
> the
> > > >>>> >>> >> contrib
> > > >>>> >>> >> folder? Are you keeping those under
a difference license
> and
> > > >>>> >>> >> don't
> > > >>>> >>> >> want
> > > >>>> >>> >> to
> > > >>>> >>> >> integrate them with the Lucene.Net.Contrib.Spatial
project
> > > >>>> >>> >> specifically?
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> ~P
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> ________________________________
> > > >>>> >>> >> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 04:41:36 +0300
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget
Packages
> > > >>>> >>> >> From: itamar@code972.com
> > > >>>> >>> >> To: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Yeah I think it is. Let's cut another
RC and see how it
> goes.
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Enjoy your vacation!
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Prescott
Nasser
> > > >>>> >>> >> <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
> > > >>>> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Good to go? I'll can merge trunk into
3.0.3 if you can't
> > easily
> > > >>>> >>> >> and
> > > >>>> >>> >> then
> > > >>>> >>> >> I'll reroll the packages
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> ________________________________
> > > >>>> >>> >> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:17:30 +0300
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget
Packages
> > > >>>> >>> >> From: itamar@code972.com
> > > >>>> >>> >> To: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> yes I was
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Prescott
Nasser
> > > >>>> >>> >> <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
> > > >>>> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Sounds good - did you get a bounce from
> > > dev@lucenenet.apache.org?
> > > >>>> >>> >> I
> > > >>>> >>> >> think
> > > >>>> >>> >> they accidentally closed the jira to
set those up without
> > > getting
> > > >>>> >>> >> them
> > > >>>> >>> >> setup
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> ________________________________
> > > >>>> >>> >> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:16:53 +0300
> > > >>>> >>> >> Subject: Fwd: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget
Packages
> > > >>>> >>> >> From: itamar@code972.com
> > > >>>> >>> >> To: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > >>>> >>> >> From: Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:13 PM
> > > >>>> >>> >> Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget
Packages
> > > >>>> >>> >> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Give me a couple of more hours, I want
to recheck
> everything
> > is
> > > >>>> >>> >> in
> > > >>>> >>> >> place,
> > > >>>> >>> >> and then you'll have my green light
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Prescott
Nasser
> > > >>>> >>> >> <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
> > > >>>> >>> >> wrote:
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Itamar - looks like you e committed
it all, are you
> > satisfied?
> > > I
> > > >>>> >>> >> will
> > > >>>> >>> >> merge changes into 3.0.3 and cut new
nuget packages.
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Ill be gone for two weeks with limited
email, so unless
> > someone
> > > >>>> >>> >> else
> > > >>>> >>> >> wants
> > > >>>> >>> >> to cut RC's for the binary and source
releases and hold a
> > vote,
> > > >>>> >>> >> ill
> > > >>>> >>> >> do
> > > >>>> >>> >> that
> > > >>>> >>> >> right when I get back
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Sent from my Windows Phone
> > > >>>> >>> >> ________________________________
> > > >>>> >>> >> From: Prescott Nasser
> > > >>>> >>> >> Sent: 8/18/2012 2:02 PM
> > > >>>> >>> >> To: Lucene Developers
> > > >>>> >>> >> Subject: RE: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget
Packages
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >> Alright, that's reasonable. Shoot us
an email when you've
> got
> > > it
> > > >>>> >>> >> complete,
> > > >>>> >>> >> I will cut another lucene.net.contrib
pre-release package
> for
> > > >>>> >>> >> nuget,
> > > >>>> >>> >> and
> > > >>>> >>> >> give the community until next weekend
to vet it.
>  Meanwhile -
> > > >>>> >>> >> Does
> > > >>>> >>> >> anyone
> > > >>>> >>> >> know how to run RAT against the 3.0.3
branch? I'd like to
> > get a
> > > >>>> >>> >> report
> > > >>>> >>> >> on
> > > >>>> >>> >> that so we can fix any issues there
~P
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>  > Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:56:58
+0300
> > > >>>> >>> >> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release
Nuget Packages
> > > >>>> >>> >> > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > >>>> >>> >> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >>>> >>> >> >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > Actively working on it as we speak,
should be ready by
> > > Tuesday.
> > > >>>> >>> >> > Up to
> > > >>>> >>> >> > you :)
> > > >>>> >>> >> >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:43 PM,
Prescott Nasser
> > > >>>> >>> >> > <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > >>>> >>> >> >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > Itamar - can you provide a
status update on what work
> > > you've
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > done
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > on
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > the
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > Geometry stuff? If it's something
that you're close on,
> > > could
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > we
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > commit it
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > to the trunk and 3.0.3 branch
so that the community
> could
> > > try
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > their
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > hand at
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > finishing it? If not, I think
we should move without
> it.
> > I
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > don't
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > want
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > to
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > hold off 3.0.3 that much longer
> > > >>>> >>> >> > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release
Nuget Packages
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > From: zgramana@gmail.com
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012
17:18:17 -0400
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > Glad to hear it.
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > FWIW, I've deployed the
Spatial contrib on client
> > > projects
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > against
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > 2.9.4.1, which would break
without the Geometry
> > namespace.
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > I'm
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > doubt
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > I'm
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > the only one.
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > I would encourage not
releasing the 3.0.3
> > > Contribs.Spatial
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > until
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > that is
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > included. I think most people
using the stable NuGet
> feed
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > would
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > expect
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > 3.0.3 to be complete with
respect to Java Lucene. It
> may
> > > take
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > people
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > quite
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > a bit of work to get their
code working again in 3.0.3
> > with
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > just
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > the
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > .NETification changes alone.
If people find that, after
> > all
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > that
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > work,
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > they
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > now have to wait for a maintenance
release, there could
> > be
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > some
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > real
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > grumpy
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > coders out there taking to
social media with pitch
> forks
> > in
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > hand.
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > It sounded like he was
done with 4.0 and just back
> > > porting
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > to
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > 3.5. I
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > would be happy to lend Itamar
a hand, if he feels it
> > could
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > help.
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:29
PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > currens.chris@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > Itamar said a few
weeks ago he was planning on
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > getting polygon
support into the spatial module (I
> am
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > assuming
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > that
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > this is the Geometry
namespace).  I'm unsure if it
> > will
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > make it
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > into
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > the official 3.0.3
release or it if it will be
> pushed
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > back
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > into
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > a
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > > > maintenance release
shortly after.
> > > >>>> >>> >> > > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > >
> > > >>>> >>> >> > >
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >>
> > > >>>> >>> >
> > > >>>> >>>
> > > >>>> >>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message