+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 > -- > > http://www.spatialys.com > My software is free, but my time generally not. > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
