[fdo-internals] MOTION -- RFC42 - Direct ArcSDE Provider

[Greg Boone]

As long as the changes would be additions and not behavioral changes to existing features, I am ok with their inclusion in 3.4.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Crispin_at_1Spatial
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:12 PM
To: fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] MOTION -- RFC42 - Direct ArcSDE Provider



Though the RFC says FDO 3.5 I know Haris has code for this for 3.4 also as
the intent was to have functionality available compatible with MapGuide 2.1

The extension of geometry support from SDO to include SDE could be argued as
additional support and not a change in functionality - certainly no change
in existing SDO functionality.



Greg Boone wrote:
> 
> Hi Crispin,
> 
> Sorry for the delay. Yes, the motion has been adopted. The state of the
> RFC can be updated to 'Adopted' accordingly, and the votes recorded. 
> 
> As for the 3.4.1 point release, we can nominated RC2 to be final at any
> time. what changes in behavior is Haris proposing? Wouldn't these be
> better suited for 3.5? I personally prefer not to change functionality
> (i.e. expected behavior) in a point release.
> 
> Greg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
> Crispin_at_1Spatial
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:46 AM
> To: fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] MOTION -- RFC42 - Direct ArcSDE Provider
> 
> 
> Greg,
> 
> On protocol - the RFC now has 5x +1 and 2x +0.
> Is this enough for me to update the RFC with the voting and set the status
> to another status?
> Does it go to "Adopted" or is that status reserved until implemented - is
> there an "Accepted" status that shows the RFC is OK but the development is
> not available yet?
> 
> 
> On a similar note, I know Haris has some updates but these should not be
> submitted until after the 3.4.1 point release is out as it would introduce
> a
> change in functionality between a RC and a Release.  Do you have a
> timescale
> for the 3.4.1 final?
> 
> 
> 
> Greg Boone wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> There were no further comments on RFC 42:
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc42  - Direct ArcSDE Provider.
>> 
>> I would like to motion a vote to accept this RFC.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Greg.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> fdo-internals mailing list
>> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> View this message in context:
> http://n2.nabble.com/MOTION-RFC42-Direct-ArcSDE-Provider-tp4107281p4138387.html
> Sent from the FDO Internals mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/MOTION-RFC42-Direct-ArcSDE-Provider-tp4107281p4140648.html
Sent from the FDO Internals mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals