[Incubator] New Application: GeoToolkit
martin.desruisseaux at geomatys.fr
Tue May 26 10:06:15 EDT 2009
I was encouraged by the discussion started Saturday, and feel very sorry that it
slipped recently... Adrian has exposed some general context. I will try to reply
to a few questions that I saw on the archive (I just registered to the list a
few minutes ago).
Daniel issued that DVCS would be like SVN sandbox except that they are private
instead of public. Actually it can be one or the other, at the DVCS user choice.
It has also been pointed that it would make release management more painful
since we would have to merge from several repositories. But merging experience
on DVCS is different than SVN, because of the history presents on every DVCS,
which tecnically allows a repository "A" merged with repository "B" and "C" to
know that repository "B" has been merged with repository "C" at some point of
its history. To make a long story short, we can intuitively imagine that when
the full history is available, there is information that a DVCS can exploit for
applying the merge in a more sophesticated fashion than what a SVN having only
the latest version locally can done.
Anyway back to the talk about Geotoolkit
Given that this fork is a precedent, I understand Frank's questions as
definition of what would be the criterion OSGeo should apply in such situation,
both in the Geotoolkit case and (possibly) in future cases.
1) Does it really have a sufficient community to flourish for some time?
Today it is Geomatys and a few parteners and institutions outside Geomatys. I'm
tempted to answer "yes", or "it will be", but this is based on my own faith. Our
hope is to get as much community as we can, but maybe a different community than
the GeoTools one. We are focusing more on scientifics - myself I'm not really a
computer man, my schollarship is all in science (physic, oceanography) and this
is reflected in the library design. It was also one reason of disagrement (to me
a Coverage is a matrix of measurements, while other GeoTools PMC were more
interrested by the imaging aspect - those two visions lead to different
2) Is it really going to be able to operate in a community based
manner or is it essentially a geomatys fork?
Today it is a Geomatys initiative. However in order to answer the question about
how we would behave with the community, the most reliable answer would be (like
Adrian suggested) to look at the 7 years of emails archive, especially the first
5 years before the discussions became more difficult. To summarize I believe
that I made a lot of effort on my own free time for adressing Geoserver and uDig
requests on referencing, and for integrating community contributions (except the
"threaded authority factory" contract, but it would be an other discussion on
3) Does it have technical strengths that make it appropriate for
OSGeo to promote it?
I'm well aware that this is a very prententious statement from me, but I think
that not many in the GeoTools community put as much effort on documentation and
rigor than me. I claim that Geotoolkit has the best referencing module, with a
long list of bugs fixed (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-2117 contains only
a fraction of them) - some of those bug fixes are difficult enough that they
can't be fixed by the current GeoTools community unless someone is willing to
spend a lot of energy on them. I believe that it also have strenght of metadata
handling, coverage and renderer.
4) Is it going to be able to work within a governance model that is
going fit with OSGeo's concept of prudent management?
I'm not sure to understand what "prudent management" means?
More information about the Incubator