[mapguide-internals] RFC60 ??? - at least a sandbox please

[Martin Morrison]

Here I go sticking my nose in where it probably doesn't belong again...

In my mind if we add RFC60 and Fusion fixes/updated version we are going to need to start completely over on the testing at the beta stage.  (forget release candidate status).  I'm not knocking any of the fixes/changes that are in these, I'm just saying we can't keep adding new features without an end in sight.  (yes, I consider the Fusion fixes a new feature)  Do a release 2.11 in a month or so and put these fixes in.  Just don't keep holding a final 2.1 release pending more bigger and better things.

I will go wipe my nose now...

Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Trevor Wekel
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:49 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] RFC60 ??? - at least a sandbox please

Ok.  An empty sandbox has been created.  Based on some of the other sandboxes, it looks as though we are only checking changed files into the sandbox.  I think this is reasonable since it gives better visibility to the changes which have occurred.

UV, once access has been approved I think it would be a good idea to first check in a set of unchanged files from the current branch of MapGuide and then apply your changes.  That way, all differences will be visible in Trac.

PSC members - is this RFC still slated for MGOS 2.1?  It would be a nice feature to include but the extended community would have to be on board to ensure code reviews, fixes, testing, etc happen before we send out a release candidate.  According to our published release process http://mapguide.osgeo.org/releaseprocess.html,

"Under no circumstances will new features be admitted to a version following a release candidate.".


Autodesk PSC members - are there any internal scheduling issues with RFC 60 going into trunk?


Thanks,
Trevor


-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Tom Fukushima
Sent: September 18, 2009 11:06 AM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] RFC60 ??? - at least a sandbox please

Our ticket for sandbox access (http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/400) has not been resolved yet.  We will need to give UV full access to the vault, as we do with current sandbox committers.

Trevor please create the sandbox, I can give UV the rights to commit.  UV, what is you OSGeo user id? Capitalization is important.

-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Trevor Wekel
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:57 AM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] RFC60 ??? - at least a sandbox please

Based on UV's discussion, I think the RFC 60 work does require a sandbox.  There are still outstanding items related to new stylize compatibility which need to be addressed.  However, there has already been significant headway made by UV and it would be disappointing to lose a significant server side code contribution from a developer outside of Autodesk.

I can set up a sandbox for RFC 60 but I do not know where commit rights lie.  From what I recall, there was an outstanding request with SAC to enable commit rights only on sandboxes.  Has this been resolved?  If so, how do we grant sandbox commit rights to UV?

Based on previous mapguide-internals "discussions", I do not believe full commit rights for UV would be accepted yet.
 
Thanks,
Trevor

-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of UV
Sent: September 18, 2009 9:28 AM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: [mapguide-internals] RFC60 ??? - at least a sandbox please

It seems like RFC60 will not be included in any release on the basis 
that it does not support the new stylization.
In this context I would like to request a sandbox to be able to upload 
at least a working configuration.
Adapting the pach to the ever changing code base is an ever increasing task.

i have been asking a few times for sample test maps to implement this 
additional functionality  I only been shown some unit test code and 
never a real map.
For the complexity of this feature this is not sufficient and I am still 
lacking resources to do an efficient job.
Furthermore nobody seems to use that stylization so it seems that RFC60, 
a simple addition in functionality, would do no harm and not disturb any 
maps using new stylization.

I am very disappointed about working months for this project an nobody 
would even allow me to
contribute anything to the code base after fixing the issues in the patch.
something seems missing in the open source here ...

our customer now has a big problem to continue with updating MGOS as the 
missing patch is very visible
on his site. thank you very much.


to keep at least the code base i am requesting

_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals