Michael Kirk
Michael Kirk
@Nevsden - as I mentioned, see the conversation in #620. We won't merge a c/c++ dependency into this repository.
I don't think I'm personally using it for anything. If other people are trying to do things like: ``` use approx::relative_eq; use geo::Polygon; assert_relative_eq!(poly1, poly2) ``` Without relying on geo-types...
As I said in discord where this conversation was also happening: There is a cost associated with maintaining two branches. I think it would make sense to do something like...
> Considering we already have a breaking change in geo-types on main My understanding is that we don't yet have any changes merged that warrant a breaking bump to geo-types...
> do you (or anyone) have any hesitations about a 0.7.4 release for geo-types? SGTM!
lol am I just re-inventing WKT?
This would have to go in the `geo-types` crate right? Alternatively, could we eliminate this crate if `postgis` got a `geo-types` feature? Relatedly, I've been musing on if it's a...
Wow! A very old issue! My guess is that the majority of the work due here will be plotting forward a course that keeps things optimal for the vast majority...
> EDIT: I should also add a question about how geozero fits into this? /cc @pka the geozero author, who is likely to have better perspective on this than me.
Fixed in #667