Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactored OSMImporter. #251

Closed
wants to merge 19 commits into from
Closed

Refactored OSMImporter. #251

wants to merge 19 commits into from

Conversation

ehx-v1
Copy link
Contributor

@ehx-v1 ehx-v1 commented Jun 10, 2016

This is a fix for #231. The method is still public because if people do use this method, making it private would result in ugly workarounds necessary at those spots, and I didn't want to risk that.
I wonder why all those other commits are in though. I'd bet something is messed up again...

craigtaverner and others added 19 commits October 27, 2015 11:34
Just a couple of grammar syntax fixes to keep the README uniform.

Also includes a brief phrase restructure for how you alert the user of the GeoServer version.
docs are TODO

spatial.addPointLayer
spatial.addLayer
spatial.layer
spatial.addNode
spatial.addNodes
spatial.addWKT
spatial.addWKTs
spatial.bbox
spatial.closest
spatial.distance
spatial.updateFromWKT
* no plain numbers passed in anymore but either nodes or maps with short or long names
* added distance column to spatial.distance result
isOneway(...) seems to be needed in references like e.g. Travis CI, so I
re-added it as redelegation to getRoadDirection(...), as the
implementation stayed the same (the new Javadoc links towards
getDirection(...) too)
@craigtaverner was fine with sorting out the problems via issues (if
they come up), so I removed the legacy method `isOneway(...)`. I did
think about making it private, but I feel like it would be a change
which is too difficult to sort out - the way it is now, a simple
renaming would be fine, while making the method private would require
ugly workarounds from the people who are actually using it by now. There
may be none, but I don't want to risk it.
@ehx-v1
Copy link
Contributor Author

ehx-v1 commented Jun 10, 2016

Oh no... did it apply all master branch commits to my 0.15-2.3 branch??? Why on Earth that???
Well, whatever the reasons, looks like I have to start over again...

@ehx-v1 ehx-v1 closed this Jun 10, 2016
@ehx-v1
Copy link
Contributor Author

ehx-v1 commented Jun 10, 2016

And again, and again, and again... Sometimes Git just won't get it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants