[fusion-dev] Re: [fdo-internals] RFC 27 - Passed

[pspencer at dmsolutions.ca]

Kenneth,

some things might work more easily for us if Fusion were integrated into the MapGuide trac but in general I think it would make life more difficult.  Fusion also supports MapServer and at least some of the bugs and development effort are completely unrelated to MapGuide.  Also, we have a number of components configured in trac that help us organize issues - I think adding all these to MapGuide would be confusing for sure.  At this point, the only hard part is to manage the MapGuide-specific templates that live in the MapGuide vault since tickets get reported in Fusion related to them.

That being said, there is a trac component for Fusion in MapGuide which is useful for MapGuide users - they can create a ticket there and then we create one in Fusion that is more specific if necessary.

Cheers

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S" <ks at geograf.dk>
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2008 4:50am
To: "Fusion Developer List" <fusion-dev at lists.osgeo.org>, "FDO Internals Mail List" <fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: [fusion-dev] Re: [fdo-internals] RFC 27 - Passed




  




I can say that the way Maestro is placed under the same trac instance
makes some problems.

I imagine it is annoying to get commit messages from Maestro, if you
are working on MapGuide.

I can also see that I get confused when I get a trac ticket that does
not explicitly say "Maestro".

There seems to a number of tickets that initally gets assigned to
something other than Maestro.

The version numbering does not work well, since Maestro and MapGuide
uses different version numberings.



Like Zac notes, it is also difficult to find stuff that is specific to
either project.



Are there stuff that the Fusion team belives would work better if they
shared the trac with MapGuide?


Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S





Zac Spitzer skrev:
As a general question here, would it make more sense to
create a separate trac instance 

for FDO toolbox?

  

I am thinking specifically about how this has gone with the mapguide
project, fusion for example 

was moved to a seperate instance, whilst maestro still lives under
mapguide.

  

It makes it's harder to track core mapguide stuff via timelines and the
like due to the volume

or maestro specific stuff..

  

Thoughts?

  

z

  

  

  
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Jason Birch <[mailto:Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca] Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca>
wrote:

  RFC
27 for bringing FDO Toolbox into the FDO fold has passed, with support
from Greg, Haris, Frank, Orest, and Jason, which is as good as
unanimous these days :)

    

As soon as the code can be migrated to our SVN and binaries posted on [http://download.osgeo.org] download.osgeo.org,
I would like to see an announcement go out via the OSGeo news queue.

    

    [http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/News_Queue] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/News_Queue

    

I can draft this if there are no other volunteers.

    

Jason

    

________________________________

    

From: Jason Birch

Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] RFC 27 for review

    

Given that we've heard from most of the PSC and there has been no

negative feedback, I would like to move to accept RFC 27:

    

 [http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc27] http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc27

    

+1 Jason

    

    

_______________________________________________

fdo-internals mailing list

    [mailto:fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org] fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org

    [http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

    

  
  
  

  
  

-- 

Zac Spitzer -

  [http://zacster.blogspot.com] http://zacster.blogspot.com
(My Blog)

+61 405 847 168

  

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[mailto:fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org] fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
[http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
  





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fusion-dev/attachments/20081107/61522260/attachment-0001.html