Return-Path: <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>
X-Original-To: info@awaresystems.be
Delivered-To: info@awaresystems.be
Received: from mx-n.b-one.net (mx-n.one.com [91.198.169.61])
	by mail9.b-one.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BA240080A
	for <info@awaresystems.be>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:47:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mx-n.b-one.net (Postfix, from userid 106)
	id 263D618E4E; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:47:41 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by one.com
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=0 required=4 tests=[none]
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from lists.maptools.org (lists.maptools.org [65.39.174.144]) by
 mx-n.b-one.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5163818E30 for <info@awaresystems.be>;
 Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:47:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
 lists.maptools.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31411D18B122; Mon, 22 Feb 2010
 12:46:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.howardsilvan.com (216-235-106-HCC-115.hcc.net
 [216.235.106.115]) by lists.maptools.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id
 06DD01D203345 for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:45:25 -0500
 (EST)
Received: from fangorn.howardsilvan.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
 mail.howardsilvan.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59EEC42010; Mon, 22 Feb 2010
 09:45:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bilbo.x101.com ([64.146.212.27] helo=bilbo.x101.com) with
 IPv4:25 by fangorn.howardsilvan.com; 22 Feb 2010 09:45:21 -0800
Message-ID: <4B82C2B4.4010409@howardsilvan.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:45:24 -0800
From: Lee Howard <faxguy@howardsilvan.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam@pobox.com>
References: <alpine.GSO.2.01.0911041214530.19531@freddy.simplesystems.org>
 <4B829A95.1070204@sidefx.com> <op.u8ja9b0mqw3wu1@titan>
 <4B82A57C.9030002@pobox.com> <4B82A962.6040504@howardsilvan.com>
 <4B82AD87.8080300@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B82AD87.8080300@pobox.com>
Cc: Tiff List <tiff@lists.maptools.org>
Subject: Re: [Tiff] Libtiff 4.0.0beta5 Released
X-BeenThere: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion <tiff.lists.maptools.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
 <mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/private/tiff>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@lists.maptools.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
 <mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
Errors-To: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org

Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Lee Howard wrote:
>> Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>> Could people please raise their voice here on the list
>>> if there is a reason not to proceed to a release candidate right 
>>> now?   Would
>>> anyone like to review the open bug list and see if they find 
>>> something that
>>> should be treated as release critical to fix?
>>
>> This is critical for me:
>>
>> http://bugzilla.maptools.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2135
>>
>> This isn't critical, but it's important to me:
>>
>> http://bugzilla.maptools.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2029
>>
>> It's my opinion that both patches can be committed immediately.
>
> Lee,
>
> I have reviewed both bugs, and I don't see that either relates to a 
> regression
> from earlier versions of libtiff.  Also, neither relates to an ABI 
> issue that
> ought to be dealt with now as it would be hard to change later.
>
> As such, it is hard for me to construe these as release critical.  As 
> they
> are in fairly fragile code I'm not terribly comfortable they can be 
> applied
> without significant risk.
>
> I'm also deathly afraid of the jpeg code. :-)
>
> Perhaps another developer would like to incorporate them and take
> responsibility? 

Frank,

Although I never discussed 2029 on this list, I did point at the 
bugzilla 2135 report about two months ago:

http://www.asmail.be/msg0054588867.html

I re-solicited the same report one month ago:

http://www.asmail.be/msg0054589825.html

This was preceded by an attempt to generate discussion:

http://www.asmail.be/msg0054584515.html

None of these generated any further on-list developer discussion about 
the proposed patch.  However, regarding the underlying problem, there 
was a bit of developer discussion almost three months ago:

http://www.asmail.be/msg0054683840.html

I understand your response to mean that you wish to promote the current 
4.0 beta to a release-candidate rather than making changes that would 
generally require another beta.  I have nothing against this.  I am 
completely supportive of whatever is required to speed up the pace of 
libtiff releases.

My response, however, was made so that I have some idea of what to tell 
my users: whether they can use 4.0.0, or 3.9.3, or whether they can 
expect to be able to use 4.0.1, or whether for the foreseeable future 
they'll have to continue to patch and rebuild or use pre-patched sources 
from me.  I'd really like to quickly get out of the business of 
distributing "custom" versions of libtiff to my users.  So if if it's 
not going to happen in 4.0.0, then I can live with that, but do I have 
any hope of seeing the patches make it into 4.0.1 or 3.9.3?

My concern is that there is seems to be some expectation or requirement 
of other developers chiming in on the proposed changes when they have 
not done so during the last two months with solicitations for discussion 
in three different postings to this mailing list during that time.  I 
would think that at some point in time someone just has to say "time's 
up", and then either the proposed changes are committed (due to lack of 
objections) or the proposed changes are rejected (due to lack of 
support), depending on what the project policy is.  My interpretation of 
your response is that patches in limbo (and there are a number of them 
on Bugzilla) are in a state of rejection until those who care about it 
drum up enough developer support to get the patches committed.

The Bugzilla list isn't terribly long at the moment (60 open bugs), but 
it really doesn't seem to get much attention, and patches posted to this 
list really aren't getting picked up independently, either (I just 
posted one such in bug 2162).

Thanks,

Lee.

_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/
