5.0 Release Plan

Pericles S. Nacionales naci0002 at UMN.EDU
Tue Aug 1 10:39:41 EDT 2006

On Tuesday 01 August 2006 08:36, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Steve Lime wrote:
> > Hi all: I'm wondering if it might make sense to start talking about a
> > 5.0 release plan? It would be nice to at least have a good idea of what
> > will be included before the conference in Sept so that we can discuss
> > with users etc... There are several RFCs out there with an unknown
> > status (e.g. dynamic array allocation, C unit tests) and a few other
> > things (e.g. internationalization) that are still hanging.
> Steve,
> I think we will need to treat dynamic array allocation as deferred.
> I don't see myself getting this RFC updated, reissued and implemented
> in time for a pre-conf release at this point.


I don't think Steve is thinking of releasing a 5.0 in September.  Rather he's 
trying to make a list of what should be included before we call a release 
version 5.0.

So, I see everything he listed as necessary changes for 5.0.  I also agree 
with Jeff M. that a second/alternate rendering engine be included.  Or at the 
very least provide a mechanism to easily add/plug alternative renderer/s in 
the future.

Steve, are you targeting a 5.0 release by the end of the year or further down 
the road?

How about we set an irc meeting to discuss this topic in the next few days?


> > Personally I have 3 big todo's:
> >
> > 1) RFC 19 (attribute binding)
> > 2) style-level transparency/removing TRANSPARENCY ALPHA (if possible)
> > 3) WFS application schema support
> >
> > Along with other cleanup...
> >
> > Those along with the WXS services support, curved labels, full-GEOS
> > support, mapfile includes, credential encryption and other stuff should
> > be more than enough to warrant a 5.0 release. I'd love to get a second
> > renderer in place but I fear there isn't time.
> I would like to see this release considered 5.0 (if only because I hate
> larger than single digit subversions).  Clearly it is too late for
> introducing a new renderer.
> > Also, what do folks think about periodic IRC developer meetings?
> > MapBuilder does this, seems to work pretty well in keeping out in front
> > of things.
>  From what I have seen with some of the other projects, it is challenging
> to get people together for regular IRC meetings.  I would be *inclined*
> not to mandate them for MapServer.  But I do think as-needed meetings could
> be helpful. Perhaps an IRC meeting to hammer out 5.0 release details would
> be good.  ie. setup a timeline, establish what is in and out, etc.
> Best regards,

More information about the mapserver-dev mailing list