MapServer Development Process?

[Steve Lime]

>>> Sean Gillies <sgillies at FRII.COM> 06/23/05 11:14 AM >>>
> Hi all,

> After listening to van Gulik's presentation, does anybody feel that the 
> MapServer project might benefit from a harder look at its development 
> process?

Yes, but that feeling will wear off I hope. ;-)

> I like the voting idea, and I think we should adopt it. I also think 
> that votes should be weighted by the number of tests that you have 
> written and committed to CVS ;) That was a joke. A voting system will 
> require better communication. The Apache projects demand that all code 
> decisions take place in the open, and we should adopt this as well. 
> This means that decisions will not be made between Howard and I on IRC, 
> or behind closed doors at DM Solutions. In the open means on the 
> mapserver-dev list. We do a fair job of this, but it could be better. 
> Writing this in stone and holding each other to it could help to head 
> off future problems.

Frank has done a nice job on more than one occation of submitting proposals
for largish modifications (e.g. rotated maps) to this group. I would like to
see more of that personally. Perhaps Frank could post that example for folks
to take a look at. If I recall correctly with the groups help there were siginificant
changes made to the implementation that resulted in an easier to use feature.

> It's also long past time to have some tests for MapServer. I propose 
> that we start with the new input plugins: no plugins committed without 
> tests. These should be tests that can be run under valgrind, and should 
> also be automate-able.

I have no problems with this. The process for writing tests, submitting them and
so on needs to be well documented and understood by those doing development.

> My last point is not so much about process as about direction and 
> design. I cracked Frank up after the conference by asking what he 
> thought about how successful Apache became following a complete 
> re-write. I was only half joking. MapServer, as a prominent user said 
> to me, has no architecture. Do we put off creating an architecture 
> until it becomes practically impossible to add new useful features? It 
> seems to me that GRASS got in trouble this way. Do we really want to 
> wait until MapServer is widely perceived as clunky and fragile before 
> making a change?

I don't know that I agree with no architecture. It's not perfect but then what is. The
map->layer->class/shape architecture works pretty well for what it was intended. I'm
not at all for re-writes for the sake of re-writing. If you see opportunities then by
all means speak up and make some proposals. I'm not afraid of major change if
there are good reasons to do so.

Steve

> cheers,
> Sean