I can organize myself and see what I can
include and what I must postpone.
Michaël
envoyé : 16 mai 2022 à 18:43
de : edgar.sol...@web.de
à : OpenJump develop and use
objet : [JPP-Devel] OSGeoLive and OJ2
hey All,
are we satisfied with revamped OJ 2.0 stability and should include
it in the upc
s.
If we fix a release date, I can organize myself and see what I can include and
what I must postpone.
Michaël
envoyé : 16 mai 2022 à 18:43
de : edgar.sol...@web.de
à : OpenJump develop and use
objet : [JPP-Devel] OSGeoLive and OJ2
hey All,
are we satisfied with revamped OJ 2.0 stability and
s.
If we fix a release date, I can organize myself and see what I can include and
what I must postpone.
Michaël
envoyé : 16 mai 2022 à 18:43
de : edgar.sol...@web.de
à : OpenJump develop and use
objet : [JPP-Devel] OSGeoLive and OJ2
hey All,
are we satisfied with revamped OJ 2.0 stability and
Ede,OpenJUMP 2.0 is quite stable now.However, I would be pleased to include some recent fixes in a bug fix release.I can also include Peppe improvements.I will not try to merge heatmap branch which could introduce regression, but I'd like to backport at least fixes.If we fix a release date, I can
Hi Peppe,I can port your changes to 2.0 if you want,Also, I have started a branch including big changes on raster symbology (branch = heatmapstyle).My original goal was to add a raster style for some kinds of multiband rasters, but from one thing to the next I made more import changes.- make Rast
hey Peppe,
looks like those changes are not in *osgeo* OJ 1.16 as well, so no stopper for
OJ2 as such.
surely they should be ported to OJ2 in the future, maybe start an issue on
github, just to make sure? ..ede
On 19.05.2022 10:08, Giuseppe Aruta wrote:
Hi Ede,
There are still some enhancem
Hi Ede,
There are still some enhancement/bugs that I did on OpenJUMP 1.16 in
december:
https://sourceforge.net/p/jump-pilot/code/HEAD/tree/core/trunk/ChangeLog
In detail, points 6677 and 6678 are the bugs
Thank you
Peppe
Il giorno lun 16 mag 2022 alle ore 18:43 ha scritto:
> hey All,
>
> are we
hey All,
are we satisfied with revamped OJ 2.0 stability and should include it in the
upcoming OSGeoLive release? Or do we need to do a quick maintenance release
beforehand?
Or should we stick with previous stable OJ 1.16 for the time being?
.. sunny regards, ede
___
