[mapserver-dev] Call For a Vote on RFC 70

[Jeff McKenna]

I'm also a -0 today because I worry about TinyOWS's support for only one 
format (in fact this was mentioned today or yesterday in the GeoServer 
vs MapServer thread as a knock against MapServer....so users really to 
care about what formats are supported for their WFS-T).....I think my 
vote would be a +1 if there was a mention of planning to support more 
formats in the RFC....but I don't want to prevent any improvements to 
MapServer so my vote is a -0.

-jeff



On 11-05-13 4:49 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> On 11-05-13 01:07 PM, Lime, Steve D (DNR) wrote:
>> With 6.0 out the door it’s onward and upward. There’s been no discussion
>> on RFC 70, Integration of TinyOWS (see
>> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-70.html) so let’s move
>> things along with a call for a vote.
>>
>
> I agree in general with this RFC, but I'd like to see a discussion on
> the integration details before I vote.
>
> I had a look at the RFC a little while ago and had a few
> questions/concerns about the integration details (source integration,
> configure scripts, release coordination, docs/website organization, how
> we present the stack/suite as a "product" to the outside world, etc.),
> but that was in the middle of traveling and the release push so I didn't
> have time to bring those up on the list (and now I forgot so I'll need
> to review the RFC again).
>
> I also think we should discuss the integration of both mod_geocache and
> TinyOWS at the same time (two RFCs in parallel), since discussing one
> may also bring up issues related to the other.
>
> I hate to block the process, but I'd like to make sure everybody's got a
> clear understanding of the way things will work after the integration
> before we vote.
>
> Unfortunately I won't have time to send my feedback today, because I
> have some other stuff to deal with, so if we can't wait then my vote is
> -0 for today.
>