Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of PscMeeting02-04-2010


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Feb 4, 2010 12:00:22 PM (8 years ago)
Author:
ksgeograf
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • PscMeeting02-04-2010

    v2 v3  
    2020== Minutes ==
    2121
    22 PSC Members present:
     22PSC Members present: Bob, Harris, Bruce, Tom, Trevor, Kenneth
     23
     24== Updates on HTTP API docs ==
     25Trevor will make HTTP API doc templates ready for mid. feb.[[BR]]
     26
     27== Ticket cleanup ==
     28Jason was not present, but Kenneth guesses that the initial cleanup is done.[[BR]]
     29
     30== MapGuide 2.2 release schedule ==
     31Current milestone is March 15th for beta, June 15th for release.[[BR]]
     32Tom will update the milestone dates.[[BR]]
     33
     34Expected release is 32 and 64 bit for windows (with 32bit webtier/apache/php),[[BR]]
     35and 32 bit linux.[[BR]]
     36Trevor will look into problems with 64bit linux support.[[BR]]
     37
     38Loose ends are: 64 bit support in installer, and new FDO providers in installer.[[BR]]
     39Jason should have be able to estimate the effort required for these two.[[BR]]
     40
     41Tom will see if any RFC's are not being adressed in 2.2 which should be.[[BR]]
     42
     43== Others? ==
     44Rasters will hopefully be more stable in 2.2.[[BR]]
     45Branching should be delayed until the installer stuff is ready.[[BR]]
     46
     47
     48== Full transcript ==
     49{{{
     50<dechanb>       Hi all
     51<rbray> Hey Bruce
     52<trevorw>       Hi Bruce
     53<Kenneth>       hi
     54<rbray> For the MG PSC Meeting, I am just going to give folks another couple of minutes
     55<Kenneth>       to save a little time, I volunteer up front for taking the minutes
     56<trevorw>       Jason just emailed -internals. He might not make the meeting.
     57<HarisK>        hi
     58<trevorw>       Hi Haris
     59<HarisK>        just came in office and so emails, i am in right timing ?
     60<HarisK>        pure luck :)
     61<rbray> Hey sorry all, we just had a little powersurge and the network bounced
     62<rbray> Looks like we have more folks now. I see Harris, Bruce, Tom, Trevor, Kenneth, and myself
     63<rbray> Did i miss anyone?
     64<rbray> Ok well let's start, hopefully Jason and the others join later
     65<rbray> Anyone want to volunteer to take minutes?
     66<trevorw>       Bob - Jason might not make it. Tied up at work.
     67<Kenneth>       i volunteer
     68<rbray> thanks Kennetj
     69<rbray> Kenneth
     70<rbray> Just so everyone knows the network here has been a little unstable this morning. Hopefully we don't have any problems, but if Tom, Bruce, or I drop that's why
     71<rbray> So what's the latest on the HTTP docs. I know it was a hot topic last time. Any progress to report?
     72<trevorw>       No progress on the docs so far. I was supposed to do the template but I got sidetracked with "other" work.
     73<rbray> No worries Trevor, any thoughts on when you might have something?
     74<trevorw>       I will try to come up with a template next week and document some of the mapping ops
     75<trevorw>       Perhaps mid-feb?
     76<trevorw>       Is anyone waiting on the docs right now?
     77<rbray> ok - we'll just leave this on our list to follow-up on
     78<rbray> I noticed Jason made some progress on Ticket clean-up, anyone know if that is done or ?
     79<Kenneth>       I volunteered (and still do) for filling in templates for some of the ops
     80<rbray> All quiet - so I guess we wait for an update from Jason
     81<Kenneth>       I think Jason completed a run of closing tickets that were pre 2.1
     82<rbray> ok thanks Kenneth
     83<rbray> So on to the 2.2 release schedule
     84<rbray> Trevor that's your item, want to start us off?
     85<trevorw>       I sent out an email last week suggesting a couple of dates for 2.2. March 15th for beta, June 15th (or earlier) for release.
     86<trevorw>       There would likely be multiple betas between March and June.
     87<trevorw>       What does everyone think?
     88<tomf1> I think that trunk is ready for a beta at any time
     89<dechanb>       Seems fine
     90<rbray> yea, I agree with Tom - trunk is pretty stable and ready
     91<trevorw>       Ok. Good. Are we with an installer for Windows and binary .tar.gz balls for CentOS5 and Ubuntu 9.1?
     92<trevorw>       (oops are we ok with)
     93<rbray> yea I am good with that. Are you planning both 32 and 64 bit?
     94<rbray> And for 64 bit what are we doing about things like Apache and PHP, which don't have official 64 bit versions?
     95<trevorw>       Now that's a great question. I was originally thinking just 32 bit but 64 bit would be appropriate for the server. Does the web tier need 64 bit? Anyone tried cross plugging a 64 bit server with a 32 bit web?
     96<dechanb>       It should be fine to mix 32 bit web with 64bit server
     97<trevorw>       That's what I figured too. The TCP/IP protocol is fairly well defined.
     98<dechanb>       I tried it some time ago, but haven't tried it recently
     99<trevorw>       Hmm... One questions would be how we handle shared web/server libs on Linux and maybe Windows if mixing 32/64 bit.
     100<dechanb>       There is not performance benefit to 64 bit web except for convenience of having both web/server on the same 64bit platform
     101<dechanb>       On windows we don't share DLLs they have their own folder - Linux is another issue
     102<trevorw>       Does Linux have any naming conventions for 32/64 bit versions of the same libraries? Maybe I need to investigate this further. For now, let's just assume we are targeting 32 bit Linux and 32 and 64 bit for Windows.
     103<rbray> trevor - that sounds reasonable
     104<dechanb>       I think that is a safe assumption until we investigate Linux
     105<rbray> if we find a solution for linux we can include 64bit in a subsequent beta
     106<dechanb>       agreed
     107<trevorw>       Ok. Sounds good to me.
     108<rbray> ok, so still target Mid March for Beta 1?
     109<trevorw>       Yes. If are just doing 32 bit for Beta 1, we should be able to make it. I don't know how much installer work we will need to do for 64 bit Windows.
     110<trevorw>       Jason would probably have a better idea on the work required for a 64 bit installer.
     111<rbray> ok let's follow-up with Jason in an e-mail
     112<rbray> it would be good to know if we could include 64 bit or not
     113<rbray> it would be really good to do so IMO
     114<tomf1> I'll change the roadmap to say Jun 30 for 2.2, and March for beta. We can refine it later when Jason pipes in, but I want to change it now, because last October for 2.2 is wrong.
     115<rbray> thanks Tom, that would be good.
     116<tomf1> The lone feature for the 2.2 milestone right now is 64-bit support!
     117<rbray> that's not right either is it?
     118<tomf1> No, there are some other things that can be included; I'll look through the RFCs and put in some other things
     119<rbray> yea, you can also add performance and stability
     120<rbray> thanks Tom
     121<rbray> anything else we need to discuss with respect to 2.2?
     122<Kenneth>       are the stability issues with rasters adressed (or being worked on) for 2.2?
     123<trevorw>       What about the new FDO Providers - PostGIS, PostgreSQL, SQLite?
     124<trevorw>       (and support for MS SQL Server 2008)
     125<rbray> the new providers are install work, we should check with Jason
     126<rbray> Kenneth - GDAL stability is still a TBD
     127<trevorw>       I haven't had a chance to look at the raster stability issues for 2.2. However, one of the big issues was FDO refcounting and I believe that has been fixed in FDO 3.5.
     128<trevorw>       I definitely needs some testing.
     129<dechanb>       That is correct Trevor
     130<Kenneth>       ok, so there is at least some hope that 2.2 (with FDO 3.5) will make rasters more stable
     131<dechanb>       *crosses fingers*
     132<Kenneth>       the beta will hopefully make it easy to test
     133<rbray> yes, but its untested
     134<rbray> so I know raster is a hot button for 2.2, are there any others open issues?
     135<tomf1> Anyone know the status of RFC 71 - AJAX Viewer Property Pane support for multiple selected features
     136<tomf1> This is Jackie's item, and currently slated for 2.2
     137<tomf1> Not a problem if it's not done though, we'll just move it to 2.3.
     138<rbray> Tom why don't you send Jackie a msg and find out.
     139<rbray> It'd be good to get that RFC udated if it is being pushed out
     140<tomf1> Yes, I'll post to mapguide-internals
     141<rbray> other items/issues for 2.2
     142<trevorw>       What about branching? Is there anyone wanting to start work on 2.3 yet?
     143<tomf1> no
     144<tomf1> 2.3 = trunk
     145<trevorw>       Yes and 2.2 = trunk for open source right now as well.
     146<rbray> right, so we need a branch right?
     147<rbray> if Jackies stuff is not done, he'll need to work on that
     148<tomf1> Right, but Trevor's right, we try to delay the branches as long as possible
     149<tomf1> saves from having to merge fixes into both the branch and trunk
     150<rbray> ok, so we'll revisit the branch closer to beta
     151<tomf1> And I suppose Jackie can either get the changes into 2.2 or work in a sandbox.
     152<trevorw>       Yep. It would be good to get some of the installer stuff out of the way before we branch.
     153<trevorw>       Too bad Jason got caught up. He'd be all over this topic!
     154<rbray> That's ok, we can follow-up with him by e-mail
     155<rbray> That's it for the agenda, any other topics we want to cover?
     156<trevorw>       Did you want me to email Jason?
     157<rbray> trevor: yes please (on internals)
     158<rbray> no other topics? what's wrong with you guys today or is everyone half asleep?
     159<Kenneth>       we had a hot topic the last time about a new viewer, but we should probably discuss that on the mailing list
     160<rbray> yea, but we need to get the HTTP API documented first
     161<trevorw>       Ok. ok. I'll work on the documentation...
     162<rbray> then we can intelligently discuss the changes/additions needed to support a different viewer
     163<Kenneth>       arh yeah :D
     164<HarisK>        2/3 asleep
     165<Kenneth>       ... now I remember :)
     166<HarisK>        I am working on atompub for georest/mapguide
     167<rbray> HarisK: that's cool
     168<rbray> any progress on georest docs
     169<rbray> or even better, public samples?
     170<HarisK>        docs sorry no, some samples are out
     171<rbray> I am thinking specifically of samples of how to configure it for use with MG
     172<rbray> that would be interesting for the community
     173<HarisK>        with install comes sample
     174<HarisK>        for mapguide and sheboygan
     175<HarisK>        it is quiet simple and easy sample for config, i believe
     176<rbray> ok thanks - I'll take a closer look at that
     177<rbray> anything else for today gang?
     178<rbray> last chance
     179<Kenneth>       6 minutes early, a new record!
     180<rbray> :)
     181<rbray> ok then we are adjourned - thanks all
     182<dechanb>       thanks all
     183<trevorw>       thanks everyone
     184<HarisK>        bye     
     185}}}