[mapguide-internals] RFC60 for vote please

[Zac Spitzer]

UV is currently moving house and is hence 'offline' at the moment

He is happy to add the support for the enhanced stylisation, changing the
text of the RFC is no issue.

Walt,

I just spoke to UV on the phone, he would really like some pointers
as he's not familiar with the enhanced stylisation stuff and the map base we
have doesn't really use the enhance stylisation stuff.

The main issue which this addresses is large areas of fill color like seas which
demonstrates the issue.

If we had a sandbox going, we could have a test build which some of these
questions could be easily checked against.

Due to the installer dev stuff we have had a rather quirky (pre) beta stage.

I agree with the sentiment of the "you need to finish what you start"
but I also
agree with Jason's point. Looking at the process so far, it took a long time
to get any code reviews.

Moving forward, I gather if we change the text of the RFC to indicate
that enhanced
stylisation will be supported, we can then approve the RFC?

z



On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Jason Birch <Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca> wrote:
> It seems clear that you're not happy with the current state of the RFC.  If this is the case, then vote -1 and stop the vote.  It's just a process thing; we don't want to modify the RFC while the vote is in process or it will invalidate the previous votes. If the RFC has defects, then these can be addressed and it can be brought to vote again.
>
> My personal concern is that this RFC is being held up because it is not a complete implementation.  If this is the case, and the partial implementation causes defects with existing functionality, then that's clearly unacceptable.  If the partial implementation is technically sound and does not affect existing functionality, then I don't think it should be held up.
>
> This will come up again and again in the future (hopefully) when we have developers working for clients who may only be able to pay or have need for a partial solution.  Rejecting this work or requiring investment beyond the client's needs is not going to be sustainable and will discourage incremental development.
>
> Jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Tom Fukushima
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:19 AM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] RFC60 for vote please
>
> Jason,
>
> Why should I vote -1?  That seems a little extreme for such a small issue. UV has already indicated that he will fix any defects that show up with the enhanced stylization.  All I'm asking is that this item be documented in the RFC.
>
> The questions you have about the enhanced stylization and its implications also show that perhaps we should have put the RFC up for formal review.  I think that we are being very generous in trying to push this RFC forward.
>
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:21 AM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] RFC60 for vote please
>
> Tom,
>
> UV has indicated that he doesn't have the experience or examples of enhanced stylization required to implement this support.  If you're not happy with the RFC as it stands, I think you need to vote -1 and propose an alternative.
>
> I'm not entirely clear on the implications of not implementing this support are.  I thought that it just meant that colours not in the list could still be represented in the palette, but in an automated (as previous) fashion, as long as there was room left in the palette.  I guess the risk would be that they wouldn't be represented at all in a map with too many colours statically defined, but that's a risk regardless?  Or am I missing something, and this will cause maps with enhanced stylization to not render those parts at all?
>
> Jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Fukushima
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:14 AM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] RFC60 for vote please
>
> Hi Zac,
>
> Looking at this email trail again: I only need commitment that the RFC will be updated so that it will say that it also supports the enhanced symbolization (as Walt states below).
>
> Typically, these types of comments and updates are done after the formal review process before putting an RFC to vote, but the PSC decided to take a risk and allow this RFC to go directly to vote without the formal review because we mistakenly thought there would not be any problems.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
>



-- 
Zac Spitzer -
http://zacster.blogspot.com
+61 405 847 168