From Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca Wed Nov 1 02:14:52 2006 From: Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca (Jason Birch) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] RFC process... References: <689794E3063F0544ABB40771AF8BA2290A184A@exchange2.sl-king.com> <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD0385F7F9@starfish.nanaimo.ca> <4543A07D.509@robertbray.net> <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD0385F7FB@starfish.nanaimo.ca> <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD0385F803@starfish.nanaimo.ca> <57858D29-DE53-4728-BFEA-17CAE65ECCA3@dmsolutions.ca> Message-ID: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD0385F83C@starfish.nanaimo.ca> There I go, asking you to keep arguing and then walking away (sorry, got busy). I've put up a revision of the RFC portion of the OSGeo PSC page here. I started from the current official text, and then modified to be kindler and gentler, but also keeping some rigidity in the process (we need to set direction). Please treat this as a straw man and beat, reshape, etc. http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_RFC_Process I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a bad idea to adopt more of a casual conversational tone on the entire PSC page, or maybe split the RFC process out into its own page. Right now the PSC page reads like a process document, which isn't bad but it's not really all that friendly either. Maybe we need two faces. I've also done some minor reformatting on a bunch of the MapGuide pages on the Wiki, and added some verbiage on how to create new RFC pages. Please feel free to revert/change if you don't like: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_RFCs http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_RFC_Template http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_PSC Are we meeting on Thus? Jason ________________________________ From: Paul Spencer Sent: Sun 2006-10-29 7:18 PM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] RFC process... Ok, ok ... I'll keep arguing ... ;) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5318 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide_psc/attachments/20061031/1c76c4e9/attachment.bin From rbray at robertbray.net Wed Nov 1 15:01:08 2006 From: rbray at robertbray.net (Robert Bray) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] RFC process... In-Reply-To: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD0385F83C@starfish.nanaimo.ca> References: <689794E3063F0544ABB40771AF8BA2290A184A@exchange2.sl-king.com> <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD0385F7F9@starfish.nanaimo.ca> <4543A07D.509@robertbray.net> <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD0385F7FB@starfish.nanaimo.ca> <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD0385F803@starfish.nanaimo.ca> <57858D29-DE53-4728-BFEA-17CAE65ECCA3@dmsolutions.ca> <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD0385F83C@starfish.nanaimo.ca> Message-ID: <4548FD04.8060009@robertbray.net> Jason, This mostly looks good. However I would like the PSC document to remain fairly rigid because in essence that document represents our by-laws. How about if we take this softer, kinder, gentler documentation and put it on a separate How to Create an RFC page that will provide links to the templates and the existing/previous RFCs? Bob Jason Birch wrote: > There I go, asking you to keep arguing and then walking away (sorry, got busy). > > I've put up a revision of the RFC portion of the OSGeo PSC page here. I started from the current official text, and then modified to be kindler and gentler, but also keeping some rigidity in the process (we need to set direction). Please treat this as a straw man and beat, reshape, etc. > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_RFC_Process > > I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a bad idea to adopt more of a casual conversational tone on the entire PSC page, or maybe split the RFC process out into its own page. Right now the PSC page reads like a process document, which isn't bad but it's not really all that friendly either. Maybe we need two faces. > > I've also done some minor reformatting on a bunch of the MapGuide pages on the Wiki, and added some verbiage on how to create new RFC pages. Please feel free to revert/change if you don't like: > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_RFCs > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_RFC_Template > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_PSC > > Are we meeting on Thus? > > Jason > > > ________________________________ > > From: Paul Spencer > Sent: Sun 2006-10-29 7:18 PM > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] RFC process... > > > > Ok, ok ... I'll keep arguing ... ;) > > > From rbray at robertbray.net Wed Nov 1 15:09:09 2006 From: rbray at robertbray.net (Robert Bray) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: Strawman Roadmap Posted Message-ID: <4548FEE5.3010507@robertbray.net> All, For our meeting tomorrow I have posted a straw man roadmap. You can find it here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_Roadmap. Bob From rbray at robertbray.net Wed Nov 1 15:33:05 2006 From: rbray at robertbray.net (Robert Bray) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: Meeting Reminder and Agenda Message-ID: <45490481.8080807@robertbray.net> All, Just a reminder that the third PSC meeting will take place tomorrow. The agenda and time can be found here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_PSC_Meeting_11-02-2006. Feel free to add additional agenda items. Bob From Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca Wed Nov 1 15:34:00 2006 From: Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca (Jason Birch) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] RFC process... Message-ID: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5712@starfish.nanaimo.ca> Sounds good. We can be more flexible in practice than the official presense, and the How To or "MapGuide Development Primer" page should reassure newcomers that their contributions are welcome, maybe with a bit more scope than just RFCs. I'm a bit out of my depth on that though. Jason -----Original Message----- From: Robert Bray [mailto:rbray@robertbray.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:01 To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] RFC process... Jason, This mostly looks good. However I would like the PSC document to remain fairly rigid because in essence that document represents our by-laws. How about if we take this softer, kinder, gentler documentation and put it on a separate How to Create an RFC page that will provide links to the templates and the existing/previous RFCs? Bob Jason Birch wrote: > There I go, asking you to keep arguing and then walking away (sorry, got busy). > > I've put up a revision of the RFC portion of the OSGeo PSC page here. I started from the current official text, and then modified to be kindler and gentler, but also keeping some rigidity in the process (we need to set direction). Please treat this as a straw man and beat, reshape, etc. > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_RFC_Process > > > I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a bad idea to adopt more of a casual conversational tone on the entire PSC page, or maybe split the RFC process out into its own page. Right now the PSC page reads like a process document, which isn't bad but it's not really all that friendly either. Maybe we need two faces. > > I've also done some minor reformatting on a bunch of the MapGuide pages on the Wiki, and added some verbiage on how to create new RFC pages. Please feel free to revert/change if you don't like: > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_RFCs > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_RFC_Template > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_PSC > > > Are we meeting on Thus? > > Jason > > > ________________________________ > > From: Paul Spencer > Sent: Sun 2006-10-29 7:18 PM > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] RFC process... > > > > Ok, ok ... I'll keep arguing ... ;) > > > From bruce.dechant at autodesk.com Wed Nov 1 15:45:19 2006 From: bruce.dechant at autodesk.com (Bruce Dechant) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-dev] RE: [mapguide-psc] MapGuide's 1st RFC! Message-ID: Traian - I like this idea! Nice and clean and no special characters. Bruce _____ From: Traian Stanev Sent: October 31, 2006 8:51 PM To: dev@mapguide.osgeo.org; psc@mapguide.osgeo.org; dev@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: RE: [mapguide-dev] RE: [mapguide-psc] MapGuide's 1st RFC! Or, you can drop the - and / altogether and have something like: mgserver start mgserver stop mgserver run etc. This would be similar to the apache command line, the subversion command line client, the ifconfig tool on Linux, the net command on Windows, etc., etc. Traian -----Original Message----- From: Tom Fukushima Sent: Tue 10/31/2006 10:22 PM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org; dev@mapguide.osgeo.org Cc: Subject: [mapguide-dev] RE: [mapguide-psc] MapGuide's 1st RFC! Yes, I would like to see both formats ("/" and "-") supported as well. But when the user gets the command line help by typing "mgserver -?" or "mgserver --help" (note the double dash), I propose that we only show the "-" versions of the options. Of course, this is a bit confusing to those users who want to figure out what /interactive means; Bruce, why are we changing "interactive" to "run"? Or will "mgserver -interactive" also work? So typing "mgserver --help" outputs: The following is a list of supported command line options: -? or --help Displays this information. -install Installs the server as a service. Automatically starts the service. Default service display name installed: "MapGuide Server" You can use a different display name for the service if you specify an optional "Name". -run Runs the server interactively as an application instead of a service. -start Starts the server service. Note: The service must be installed. -stop Stops the server service. Note: The service must be installed. -testfdo Runs the FDO unit tests. Default output of the FDO unit tests will be the console unless you specify an optional "Filename". The output to the "Filename" will be in XML. -test /o Runs the server unit tests. By default all of the unit tests will be run unless you specify an optional "Test" to run. If you specify "List" as the test to run you will get a list of the available unit tests. Default output of the unit tests will be the console unless you specify an optional "Filename". The output to the "Filename" will be in XML. -uninstall Uninstalls an installed server service. Automatically stops the service before uninstalling. Note: Only 1 command line option can be used at a time. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Dechant Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:49 PM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] MapGuide's 1st RFC! I will be easy enough to support both. I'll update the RFC to reflect this. Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Andy Morsell [mailto:amorsell@spatialgis.com] Sent: October 31, 2006 12:42 PM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] MapGuide's 1st RFC! I agree, it's probably not a big issue. It depends on how much work it would be on Bruce's end to support backwards compatibility. If it would be relatively easy, then may as well do it. If it would require a large effort, then the current console response to an incorrect parameter should be sufficient for users to figure it out on their own. Andy -----Original Message----- From: Paul Spencer [mailto:pspencer@dmsolutions.ca] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 11:29 AM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] MapGuide's 1st RFC! I am normally a big fan of backwards compatibility too, but I really don't see this as a big issue. Perhaps if the tool just spits out an appropriate message if called with incorrect parameters? Then again, windows users are most likely used to the / style of adding parameters so perhaps that makes it worthwhile supporting both? Paul On 31-Oct-06, at 2:08 PM, Andy Morsell wrote: > I agree with Frank in that keeping it backwards compatible with the > older command line parameters while in the future only documenting the > new ones would be the best. There are many references, mostly in > archived messages in the mapguide-users mailing list, to the current > parameter syntax that new users are bound to run across (and try to > use) when doing research. > > Regarding the RFC format, that seems to work very well. > > Andy > > From: Bruce Dechant [mailto:bruce.dechant@autodesk.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:20 AM > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: [mapguide-psc] MapGuide's 1st RFC! > > Hi All, > > > > I wrote up a simple MapGuide RFC to give our process a trial run. > > > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MG_RFC_1_- > _Commandline_parameter_changes > > > > Please have a look and post any feedback. > > > > Thanks, > > Bruce > > > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ |Paul Spencer pspencer@dmsolutions.ca | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ |Chief Technology Officer | |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@mapguide.osgeo.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@mapguide.osgeo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide_psc/attachments/20061101/64ea01e7/attachment.html From dmorissette at mapgears.com Wed Nov 1 15:53:02 2006 From: dmorissette at mapgears.com (Daniel Morissette) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] Meeting Reminder and Agenda In-Reply-To: <45490481.8080807@robertbray.net> References: <45490481.8080807@robertbray.net> Message-ID: <4549092E.1010603@mapgears.com> Robert Bray wrote: > All, > > Just a reminder that the third PSC meeting will take place tomorrow. The > agenda and time can be found here: > http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_PSC_Meeting_11-02-2006. > > Feel free to add additional agenda items. > Because of the switch from DST to normal time last weekend, the World Clock link in the Wiki gives a 1 hour offset (12:00/noon EST, etc.). If we want the meeting at 1:00 PM EST / 11:00 AM MST / 10:00 AM PST as advertized in the wiki, then we should use 18:00 UTC: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=2&year=2006&hour=18&min=0&sec=0&p1=0 Daniel -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ From Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca Wed Nov 1 16:01:02 2006 From: Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca (Jason Birch) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] Strawman Roadmap Posted Message-ID: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5715@starfish.nanaimo.ca> Cool, you're getting more features into the service pack than the release. Or are you moving to a different release designation? :) I'd really like to see some more details on these projected features (I guess through RFCs). The Windows install process needs some more work besides the FDO providers. For instance being able to specify alternate locations for the server install, making alternate locations work properly for the web extensions, allowing specification of folders (repository, log, etc) during installation... I think we're going to be reliant on the Autodesk package creation mechanism for the near future, but it would be great if we could take responsibility for this at some point. I'd also really like to see Fusion get into 1.2. Paul, do you think that DMSG is prepared to go ahead with this (and an RFC) for 1.2, or are we looking at a later release? Jason -----Original Message----- From: Robert Bray Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:09 To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: [mapguide-psc] Strawman Roadmap Posted All, For our meeting tomorrow I have posted a straw man roadmap. You can find it here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_Roadmap. Bob From haris at sl-king.com Wed Nov 1 16:06:31 2006 From: haris at sl-king.com (Haris Kurtagic) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] Strawman Roadmap Posted In-Reply-To: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5715@starfish.nanaimo.ca> Message-ID: <689794E3063F0544ABB40771AF8BA2290A18CE@exchange2.sl-king.com> Jason, what is Fusion? Haris -----Original Message----- From: Jason Birch [mailto:Jason.Birch@nanaimo.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 10:01 PM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] Strawman Roadmap Posted Cool, you're getting more features into the service pack than the release. Or are you moving to a different release designation? :) I'd really like to see some more details on these projected features (I guess through RFCs). The Windows install process needs some more work besides the FDO providers. For instance being able to specify alternate locations for the server install, making alternate locations work properly for the web extensions, allowing specification of folders (repository, log, etc) during installation... I think we're going to be reliant on the Autodesk package creation mechanism for the near future, but it would be great if we could take responsibility for this at some point. I'd also really like to see Fusion get into 1.2. Paul, do you think that DMSG is prepared to go ahead with this (and an RFC) for 1.2, or are we looking at a later release? Jason -----Original Message----- From: Robert Bray Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:09 To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: [mapguide-psc] Strawman Roadmap Posted All, For our meeting tomorrow I have posted a straw man roadmap. You can find it here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_Roadmap. Bob From dmorissette at mapgears.com Wed Nov 1 16:10:19 2006 From: dmorissette at mapgears.com (Daniel Morissette) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: PSC vs DEV list Message-ID: <45490D3B.1000209@mapgears.com> After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only one to think this way? Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having two lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list *only* (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members are required to follow the -dev list? Daniel -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ From rbray at robertbray.net Wed Nov 1 17:27:38 2006 From: rbray at robertbray.net (Robert Bray) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] Meeting Reminder and Agenda In-Reply-To: <4549092E.1010603@mapgears.com> References: <45490481.8080807@robertbray.net> <4549092E.1010603@mapgears.com> Message-ID: <45491F5A.2070400@robertbray.net> Oops hasty fingers. Thanks Daniel I will update the Agenda. Bob Daniel Morissette wrote: > Robert Bray wrote: >> All, >> >> Just a reminder that the third PSC meeting will take place tomorrow. >> The agenda and time can be found here: >> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_PSC_Meeting_11-02-2006. >> >> Feel free to add additional agenda items. >> > > Because of the switch from DST to normal time last weekend, the World > Clock link in the Wiki gives a 1 hour offset (12:00/noon EST, etc.). > > If we want the meeting at 1:00 PM EST / 11:00 AM MST / 10:00 AM PST as > advertized in the wiki, then we should use 18:00 UTC: > > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=2&year=2006&hour=18&min=0&sec=0&p1=0 > > > Daniel From Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca Wed Nov 1 18:09:48 2006 From: Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca (Jason Birch) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list Message-ID: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5720@starfish.nanaimo.ca> Given the size of the project, I think it makes sense to merge the lists. If it gets busier and confusing later then we can look at splitting it back out. If we have agreement on this, then we can make this our first e-Vote on process change and the last email on the PSC list (which we will archive, not delete) :) I wish this list stripped email addresses from replies automagically... I keep forgetting. Jason -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Morissette Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only one to think this way? Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having two lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list *only* (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members are required to follow the -dev list? Daniel -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ From Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca Wed Nov 1 18:36:13 2006 From: Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca (Jason Birch) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: MapGuide RFC page titles Message-ID: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5721@starfish.nanaimo.ca> Does anyone mind if I move the documents from MG RFC 1 - ... To MapGuide RFC 1 - ... It will improve our findability :) I'll do this using the internal Wiki move function so no links will be broken. If I don't get any response, I'll do this tonight. Jason From bruce.dechant at autodesk.com Wed Nov 1 18:50:43 2006 From: bruce.dechant at autodesk.com (Bruce Dechant) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] MapGuide RFC page titles References: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5721@starfish.nanaimo.ca> Message-ID: No objections here. Thanks Jason. Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Jason Birch [mailto:Jason.Birch@nanaimo.ca] Sent: Wed 11/1/2006 4:36 PM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Cc: Subject: [mapguide-psc] MapGuide RFC page titles Does anyone mind if I move the documents from MG RFC 1 - ... To MapGuide RFC 1 - ... It will improve our findability :) I'll do this using the internal Wiki move function so no links will be broken. If I don't get any response, I'll do this tonight. Jason -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2596 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide_psc/attachments/20061101/3c409a5e/attachment.bin From pspencer at dmsolutions.ca Wed Nov 1 19:37:47 2006 From: pspencer at dmsolutions.ca (Paul Spencer) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list In-Reply-To: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5720@starfish.nanaimo.ca> References: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5720@starfish.nanaimo.ca> Message-ID: <9277C5FE-3453-42AF-9E89-9CF0565B0D6D@dmsolutions.ca> I think the original intention was to shield the developers from process oriented discussions :) I'm okay with merging the lists ... Paul On 1-Nov-06, at 6:09 PM, Jason Birch wrote: > > Given the size of the project, I think it makes sense to merge the > lists. If it gets busier and confusing later then we can look at > splitting it back out. If we have agreement on this, then we can make > this our first e-Vote on process change and the last email on the PSC > list (which we will archive, not delete) :) > > I wish this list stripped email addresses from replies > automagically... > I keep forgetting. > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Morissette > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list > > After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV > lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in > duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for > those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only > one > to think this way? > > Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on > having two > lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list > *only* > (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members are > required to follow the -dev list? > > Daniel > -- > Daniel Morissette > http://www.mapgears.com/ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ |Paul Spencer pspencer@dmsolutions.ca | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ |Chief Technology Officer | |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ From rbray at robertbray.net Wed Nov 1 19:52:10 2006 From: rbray at robertbray.net (Robert Bray) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list In-Reply-To: <9277C5FE-3453-42AF-9E89-9CF0565B0D6D@dmsolutions.ca> References: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5720@starfish.nanaimo.ca> <9277C5FE-3453-42AF-9E89-9CF0565B0D6D@dmsolutions.ca> Message-ID: <4549413A.6060807@robertbray.net> I am ok with either approach, merging the discussions all onto mapguide-dev or keeping mapguide-psc just for process. My guess is that we will always wind up with some cross posting if we keep both, so getting rid of mapguide-psc may be the best choice. Bob Paul Spencer wrote: > I think the original intention was to shield the developers from > process oriented discussions :) > > I'm okay with merging the lists ... > > Paul > > On 1-Nov-06, at 6:09 PM, Jason Birch wrote: > >> >> Given the size of the project, I think it makes sense to merge the >> lists. If it gets busier and confusing later then we can look at >> splitting it back out. If we have agreement on this, then we can make >> this our first e-Vote on process change and the last email on the PSC >> list (which we will archive, not delete) :) >> >> I wish this list stripped email addresses from replies automagically... >> I keep forgetting. >> >> Jason >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Morissette >> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 >> To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> >> After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV >> lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in >> duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for >> those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only one >> to think this way? >> >> Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having two >> lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list *only* >> (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members are >> required to follow the -dev list? >> >> Daniel >> -- >> Daniel Morissette >> http://www.mapgears.com/ > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Paul Spencer pspencer@dmsolutions.ca | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Chief Technology Officer | > |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > From Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca Wed Nov 1 19:56:20 2006 From: Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca (Jason Birch) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list Message-ID: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5727@starfish.nanaimo.ca> Given the lack of objections, I'd like to move to archive the PSC list and move all future discussions to the DEV list. Consider this a +1 once somebody second's. Jason -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only one to think this way? Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having two lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list *only* (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members are required to follow the -dev list? Daniel -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ From pspencer at dmsolutions.ca Wed Nov 1 19:59:09 2006 From: pspencer at dmsolutions.ca (Paul Spencer) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] Strawman Roadmap Posted In-Reply-To: <689794E3063F0544ABB40771AF8BA2290A18CE@exchange2.sl-king.com> References: <689794E3063F0544ABB40771AF8BA2290A18CE@exchange2.sl-king.com> Message-ID: <7F133473-C56B-418A-8B13-D6D2386DED98@dmsolutions.ca> Haris, MapGuide Fusion is designed to be a flexible templating approach to building MapGuide OS/Enterprise applications. It separates UI design from code and is built more-or-less on the WebLayout with some additions and changes. It is primarily built in javascript, but has the capability to have server-side scripts that work directly with the web tier API. Currently we are implementing server-side stuff in PHP but it is designed to allow for other backend technologies in the future. There is a single javascript file that is included, and a simple javascript call to kick-start the process. The WebLayout is loaded, parsed, and every Command is associated with an element in the page through ids. If the id exists, then another javascript file is loaded that implements the Action of the Command. Each command is a separate piece of javascript and is independent (more or less) of all others. Everything tries to be as simple as possible with most stuff happening through CSS and standard HTML (unobtrusive javascript). We are building this to be an open source package with the possibility of including commercial components (like light-weight editing) and for offering commercial support through our Premiere product. I've shown it to Bob and he indicated that he would be willing to consider it as a replacement for the existing viewer capability. Jason has contracted DM for a couple of applications based on MapGuide, and we are using Fusion for these applications. Hopefully by January, the basic toolkit will include all the existing capabilities of the ajax viewer and a bunch of other stuff. I think it is feasible to consider it for inclusion in a 1.2 release, even if it doesn't immediately replace the ajax viewer - this would require changes to Studio and synchronization with the Enterprise product for instance. There are also some considerations for backwards compatibility, including figuring out how to upgrade existing applications with minimal effort. Cheers Paul On 1-Nov-06, at 4:06 PM, Haris Kurtagic wrote: > Jason, > > what is Fusion? > > Haris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Birch [mailto:Jason.Birch@nanaimo.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 10:01 PM > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] Strawman Roadmap Posted > > Cool, you're getting more features into the service pack than the > release. Or are you moving to a different release designation? :) > > I'd really like to see some more details on these projected > features (I > guess through RFCs). > > The Windows install process needs some more work besides the FDO > providers. For instance being able to specify alternate locations for > the server install, making alternate locations work properly for > the web > extensions, allowing specification of folders (repository, log, etc) > during installation... > > I think we're going to be reliant on the Autodesk package creation > mechanism for the near future, but it would be great if we could take > responsibility for this at some point. > > I'd also really like to see Fusion get into 1.2. Paul, do you think > that DMSG is prepared to go ahead with this (and an RFC) for 1.2, > or are > we looking at a later release? > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Bray > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:09 > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: [mapguide-psc] Strawman Roadmap Posted > > All, > > For our meeting tomorrow I have posted a straw man roadmap. You can > find it here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_Roadmap. > > Bob +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ |Paul Spencer pspencer@dmsolutions.ca | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ |Chief Technology Officer | |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ From rbray at robertbray.net Wed Nov 1 21:26:52 2006 From: rbray at robertbray.net (Robert Bray) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list In-Reply-To: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5727@starfish.nanaimo.ca> References: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD030D5727@starfish.nanaimo.ca> Message-ID: <4549576C.2070707@robertbray.net> I'll second and +1. Bob Jason Birch wrote: > Given the lack of objections, I'd like to move to archive the PSC list > and move all future discussions to the DEV list. > > Consider this a +1 once somebody second's. > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list > > After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV > lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in > duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for > those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only one > to think this way? > > Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having two > lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list *only* > (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members are > required to follow the -dev list? > > Daniel > -- > Daniel Morissette > http://www.mapgears.com/ > > From amorsell at spatialgis.com Wed Nov 1 21:33:29 2006 From: amorsell at spatialgis.com (Andy Morsell) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list In-Reply-To: <4549576C.2070707@robertbray.net> Message-ID: <001501c6fe27$48c4e240$6501a8c0@SPINAJM> +1. I guess I should subscribe to the dev list now.......... Andy -----Original Message----- From: Robert Bray [mailto:rbray@robertbray.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:27 PM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list I'll second and +1. Bob Jason Birch wrote: > Given the lack of objections, I'd like to move to archive the PSC list > and move all future discussions to the DEV list. > > Consider this a +1 once somebody second's. > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list > > After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV > lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in > duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for > those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only > one to think this way? > > Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having > two lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list > *only* (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members > are required to follow the -dev list? > > Daniel > -- > Daniel Morissette > http://www.mapgears.com/ > > From bruce.dechant at autodesk.com Wed Nov 1 23:10:20 2006 From: bruce.dechant at autodesk.com (Bruce Dechant) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list References: <001501c6fe27$48c4e240$6501a8c0@SPINAJM> Message-ID: +1 -----Original Message----- From: Andy Morsell [mailto:amorsell@spatialgis.com] Sent: Wed 11/1/2006 7:33 PM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Cc: Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list +1. I guess I should subscribe to the dev list now.......... Andy -----Original Message----- From: Robert Bray [mailto:rbray@robertbray.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:27 PM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list I'll second and +1. Bob Jason Birch wrote: > Given the lack of objections, I'd like to move to archive the PSC list > and move all future discussions to the DEV list. > > Consider this a +1 once somebody second's. > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list > > After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV > lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in > duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for > those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only > one to think this way? > > Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having > two lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list > *only* (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members > are required to follow the -dev list? > > Daniel > -- > Daniel Morissette > http://www.mapgears.com/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide_psc/attachments/20061101/b7644b6b/attachment.html From haris at sl-king.com Thu Nov 2 04:28:13 2006 From: haris at sl-king.com (Haris Kurtagic) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <689794E3063F0544ABB40771AF8BA2290A18D2@exchange2.sl-king.com> +1 ________________________________ From: Bruce Dechant [mailto:bruce.dechant@autodesk.com] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:10 AM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org; psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list +1 -----Original Message----- From: Andy Morsell [mailto:amorsell@spatialgis.com] Sent: Wed 11/1/2006 7:33 PM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Cc: Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list +1. I guess I should subscribe to the dev list now.......... Andy -----Original Message----- From: Robert Bray [mailto:rbray@robertbray.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:27 PM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list I'll second and +1. Bob Jason Birch wrote: > Given the lack of objections, I'd like to move to archive the PSC list > and move all future discussions to the DEV list. > > Consider this a +1 once somebody second's. > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list > > After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV > lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in > duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for > those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only > one to think this way? > > Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having > two lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list > *only* (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members > are required to follow the -dev list? > > Daniel > -- > Daniel Morissette > http://www.mapgears.com/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide_psc/attachments/20061102/8072dfaa/attachment.html From pspencer at dmsolutions.ca Thu Nov 2 05:48:20 2006 From: pspencer at dmsolutions.ca (Paul Spencer) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list In-Reply-To: <689794E3063F0544ABB40771AF8BA2290A18D2@exchange2.sl-king.com> References: <689794E3063F0544ABB40771AF8BA2290A18D2@exchange2.sl-king.com> Message-ID: <0378C6F8-678D-445B-9DDB-56CD67CAFC24@dmsolutions.ca> +1 On 2-Nov-06, at 4:28 AM, Haris Kurtagic wrote: > +1 > > From: Bruce Dechant [mailto:bruce.dechant@autodesk.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:10 AM > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org; psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list > > +1 > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Morsell [mailto:amorsell@spatialgis.com] > Sent: Wed 11/1/2006 7:33 PM > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Cc: > Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list > > +1. I guess I should subscribe to the dev list now.......... > > > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Bray [mailto:rbray@robertbray.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:27 PM > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list > > I'll second and +1. > > Bob > > Jason Birch wrote: > > Given the lack of objections, I'd like to move to archive the PSC > list > > and move all future discussions to the DEV list. > > > > Consider this a +1 once somebody second's. > > > > Jason > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 > > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org > > Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list > > > > After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV > > lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in > > duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads > for > > those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only > > one to think this way? > > > > Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having > > two lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev > list > > *only* (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members > > are required to follow the -dev list? > > > > Daniel > > -- > > Daniel Morissette > > http://www.mapgears.com/ > > > > > > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ |Paul Spencer pspencer@dmsolutions.ca | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ |Chief Technology Officer | |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ From dmorissette at mapgears.com Thu Nov 2 07:33:16 2006 From: dmorissette at mapgears.com (Daniel Morissette) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list In-Reply-To: <0378C6F8-678D-445B-9DDB-56CD67CAFC24@dmsolutions.ca> References: <689794E3063F0544ABB40771AF8BA2290A18D2@exchange2.sl-king.com> <0378C6F8-678D-445B-9DDB-56CD67CAFC24@dmsolutions.ca> Message-ID: <4549E58C.2040102@mapgears.com> I'm not voting since I'm only an observer on the PSC, but I'm glad to see the issue has been addressed so quickly. :) Daniel Paul Spencer wrote: > +1 > > On 2-Nov-06, at 4:28 AM, Haris Kurtagic wrote: > >> +1 >> >> From: Bruce Dechant [mailto:bruce.dechant@autodesk.com] >> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:10 AM >> To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org; psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> >> +1 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Morsell [mailto:amorsell@spatialgis.com] >> Sent: Wed 11/1/2006 7:33 PM >> To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> Cc: >> Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> >> +1. I guess I should subscribe to the dev list now.......... >> >> >> Andy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Bray [mailto:rbray@robertbray.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:27 PM >> To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> >> I'll second and +1. >> >> Bob >> >> Jason Birch wrote: >> > Given the lack of objections, I'd like to move to archive the PSC list >> > and move all future discussions to the DEV list. >> > >> > Consider this a +1 once somebody second's. >> > >> > Jason >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com] >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 >> > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> > Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> > >> > After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV >> > lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in >> > duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for >> > those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only >> > one to think this way? >> > >> > Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having >> > two lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list >> > *only* (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members >> > are required to follow the -dev list? >> > >> > Daniel >> > -- >> > Daniel Morissette >> > http://www.mapgears.com/ >> > >> > >> >> >> > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Paul Spencer pspencer@dmsolutions.ca | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Chief Technology Officer | > |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ From Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca Thu Nov 2 12:42:14 2006 From: Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca (Jason Birch) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list References: <689794E3063F0544ABB40771AF8BA2290A18D2@exchange2.sl-king.com> <0378C6F8-678D-445B-9DDB-56CD67CAFC24@dmsolutions.ca> <4549E58C.2040102@mapgears.com> Message-ID: <8E468917B01800408B91984428BE03DD0385F84D@starfish.nanaimo.ca> Unfortunately, I'm not used to process yet and forgot to define the timeline for the motion. I think that it should be by default 1 week from seconding of motion, with the option to define as short a period as 48 hours for important stuff. Of course if everyone votes it would close earlier. Also, I saw on the FDO list that they extended the IRC veto to 48 hours to deal with timezone issues.I think that this is a good idea. I'll add these items to today's meeting minutes. Jason ________________________________ From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com] Sent: Thu 2006-11-02 4:33 AM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list I'm not voting since I'm only an observer on the PSC, but I'm glad to see the issue has been addressed so quickly. :) Daniel Paul Spencer wrote: > +1 > > On 2-Nov-06, at 4:28 AM, Haris Kurtagic wrote: > >> +1 >> >> From: Bruce Dechant [mailto:bruce.dechant@autodesk.com] >> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:10 AM >> To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org; psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> >> +1 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Morsell [mailto:amorsell@spatialgis.com] >> Sent: Wed 11/1/2006 7:33 PM >> To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> Cc: >> Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> >> +1. I guess I should subscribe to the dev list now.......... >> >> >> Andy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Bray [mailto:rbray@robertbray.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:27 PM >> To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> >> I'll second and +1. >> >> Bob >> >> Jason Birch wrote: >> > Given the lack of objections, I'd like to move to archive the PSC list >> > and move all future discussions to the DEV list. >> > >> > Consider this a +1 once somebody second's. >> > >> > Jason >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com] >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 >> > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> > Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> > >> > After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV >> > lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in >> > duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for >> > those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only >> > one to think this way? >> > >> > Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having >> > two lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list >> > *only* (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members >> > are required to follow the -dev list? >> > >> > Daniel >> > -- >> > Daniel Morissette >> > http://www.mapgears.com/ >> > >> > >> >> >> > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Paul Spencer pspencer@dmsolutions.ca | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Chief Technology Officer | > |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 7923 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide_psc/attachments/20061102/9fefc2c7/attachment.bin From tom.fukushima at autodesk.com Thu Nov 2 12:46:15 2006 From: tom.fukushima at autodesk.com (Tom Fukushima) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list Message-ID: +1 _____ From: Jason Birch [mailto:Jason.Birch@nanaimo.ca] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:42 AM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list Unfortunately, I'm not used to process yet and forgot to define the timeline for the motion. I think that it should be by default 1 week from seconding of motion, with the option to define as short a period as 48 hours for important stuff. Of course if everyone votes it would close earlier. Also, I saw on the FDO list that they extended the IRC veto to 48 hours to deal with timezone issues.I think that this is a good idea. I'll add these items to today's meeting minutes. Jason _____ From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com] Sent: Thu 2006-11-02 4:33 AM To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list I'm not voting since I'm only an observer on the PSC, but I'm glad to see the issue has been addressed so quickly. :) Daniel Paul Spencer wrote: > +1 > > On 2-Nov-06, at 4:28 AM, Haris Kurtagic wrote: > >> +1 >> >> From: Bruce Dechant [mailto:bruce.dechant@autodesk.com] >> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:10 AM >> To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org; psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> >> +1 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Morsell [mailto:amorsell@spatialgis.com] >> Sent: Wed 11/1/2006 7:33 PM >> To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> Cc: >> Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> >> +1. I guess I should subscribe to the dev list now.......... >> >> >> Andy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Bray [mailto:rbray@robertbray.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:27 PM >> To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> >> I'll second and +1. >> >> Bob >> >> Jason Birch wrote: >> > Given the lack of objections, I'd like to move to archive the PSC list >> > and move all future discussions to the DEV list. >> > >> > Consider this a +1 once somebody second's. >> > >> > Jason >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com] >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10 >> > To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org >> > Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list >> > >> > After seeing the discussions on RFC-1 split between the PSC and DEV >> > lists, it seems to me that having split PSC and DEV lists results in >> > duplicate messages for those on both lists and on partial threads for >> > those only on one list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only >> > one to think this way? >> > >> > Would we not be better with just one list? Or if we insist on having >> > two lists then discuss RFCs and all technical issues to the -dev list >> > *only* (including the vote), with the understanding that PSC members >> > are required to follow the -dev list? >> > >> > Daniel >> > -- >> > Daniel Morissette >> > http://www.mapgears.com/ >> > >> > >> >> >> > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Paul Spencer pspencer@dmsolutions.ca | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > |Chief Technology Officer | > |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide_psc/attachments/20061102/99eac957/attachment.html From stefano.casagrande at ies.it Thu Nov 9 10:51:46 2006 From: stefano.casagrande at ies.it (Stefano Casagrande (I&S)) Date: Fri Dec 22 16:09:18 2006 Subject: Problems with MapServer Message-ID: <020a01c70416$f5e27880$4903010a@pcstefanoc> Hi! I have installed MapServer 1.0.2, MapServerWebExtensions 1.0.2 and everything's ok. In fact the example application http://localhost/mapguide/phpviewersample/ajaxtiledviewersample.php Works. Even if I change the ajaxtiledviewersample.php with a new $webLayout and $mapDefinition it shows the new map. But if I develop another application with the same map that works with the example it tell me: Failed to retrieve message for "MgFileNotFoundException". Exception occured in method ByteSourceFileImpl.LoadFile at line 126 in file c:\build_tux_area\mgdev_opensource\common\service\data\ByteSourceFileImpl.cpp WebConfig.ini is ok, what should I check ? How should I found what fails ?