[mapguide-internals] sync'ing mg21 branch in fusion to trunk

Paul Spencer pspencer at dmsolutions.ca
Wed Jul 8 22:29:21 EDT 2009

No decision has been posted but based on the feedback so far, I will  
be announcing that we will 'abandon' the 2.0 release and start over  
again with a new beta by merging the current state of trunk into the  
branch.  I suggest that you provide patches for trunk only to minimize  
wasted effort.

Thank you for fixing things!


On 8-Jul-09, at 5:59 PM, Walt Welton-Lair wrote:

> Hi Paul / Jason,
> I plan to prepare some fusion patches for MapGuide search-related  
> defects (fusion tickets 236, 237, 268).  I want to prepare these for  
> all current versions of MapGuide: trunk, MGOS 2.1 beta, and the  
> sandbox version used by Autodesk:
>  * the sandbox version is based on fusion2-mg21 and I don't expect  
> that to change, so I will prepare one set of patches against that  
> stream
>  * I'll prepare another set of patches against the trunk stream
> The one I'm wondering about is MGOS 2.1 which currently uses the  
> fusion-2.0 stream.  Has a decision been made as to what version of  
> fusion it will use?  I'll hold off preparing the patches for MGOS  
> 2.1 until we know for sure.
> Thanks,
> Walt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 4:18 PM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] sync'ing mg21 branch in fusion to  
> trunk
> Paul,
> In general, I would be in favour of this approach.  I haven't seen  
> anything committed to Fusion trunk that would destabilize our  
> existing functionality (correct me if I'm wrong), and we may benefit  
> from additional fixes and from developers spending time fixing bugs  
> instead of managing merges.  And, as users have pointed out in the - 
> users list, Fusion really needs a bit of work before it's usable  
> with the current templates, and it hurts to release 2.1 with another  
> "broken" version of Fusion.
> I could use a confirmation that the 2.0 Sheboygan samples are good  
> with the 2.1 templates; I keep wondering if some of the bugs are  
> because of problems using the 2.0 application definitions with the  
> 2.1 templates.
> As a point of clarification, MG 2.1 beta is pulling from this branch:
> http://svn.osgeo.org/fusion/branches/fusion-2.0
> I believe the other branch may have been used by Autodesk?
> Jason
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Spencer
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 5:29 AM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Subject: [mapguide-internals] sync'ing mg21 branch in fusion to trunk
> Its been several months since we've done any work on Fusion and
> pushing it closer to a release ... no excuses, it just didn't happen :
> (  But I would like to start planning some work on Fusion to get it
> more stable and address some of the many issues logged in fusion trac,
> especially the ones that people have been kind enough to do the leg
> work on and propose fixes.
> Right now, I think MapGuide 2.1 is pulling fusion from a branch called
> fusion2-mg21.  There are a few differences between this branch and the
> fusion-2.0 branch, and some of the mapguide-issues logged in mapguide
> and fusion trac could perhaps be addressed simply by switching to the
> 2.0 branch.
> Also, the other problem is that we have let the 2.0 branch languish
> and it is no longer quite relevant.  I am going to propose to the
> Fusion community that we more-or-less abandon the existing 2.0 beta
> release and sync with the current trunk version and try again.  This
> will mean more substantial changes and additions to 2.0 than would
> otherwise be acceptable once a beta version had been released ... but
> I think it is worth it for a couple of reasons:
> * we obviously have limited attention from developers contributing to
> fusion and trying to make time to release an out-of-date package seems
> like a poor use of their time.
> * there are some important changes in trunk like switching the client-
> side vector code over to use OpenLayers vectors that will further
> minimize the amount of maintenance we need to do while increasing
> functionality.
> * I think trunk is more stable than the 2.0 branch right now :)
> Question: Will MapGuide 2.1 include the 'official' 2.0 branch of
> Fusion if we restart the release process for 2.0 from the current
> state of fusion trunk?
> Feedback is welcome, of course.
> Cheers
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals


    Paul Spencer
    Chief Technology Officer
    DM Solutions Group Inc

More information about the mapguide-internals mailing list