Changes between Version 5 and Version 6 of PscMeeting03-05-2009


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Mar 5, 2009, 12:02:02 PM (15 years ago)
Author:
brucedechant
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • PscMeeting03-05-2009

    v5 v6  
    4444
    4545=== Installer ===
     46 * Still being worked on
     47 * Maybe a few more weeks
    4648
    4749=== Process for voting new committers ===
    48  * Producing OSS book mentioned that voting and recommending new committers in should be done in private in case they are rejected, then they won't be hurt in public.
     50 * Producing OSS book mentioned that voting and recommending new committers should be done in private in case they are rejected, then they won't be hurt in public.
    4951 * Left as open for the time being as we have few committers and don't want to discourage new committers
     52
     53=== 2.1 Beta ===
     54 * Another couple of weeks.
     55 * Move the release date on the milestone page out by 2 weeks
    5056
    5157=== ACE 5.6 ===
    5258 * Contains needed 64bit fixes
     59 * Needs RFC
    5360 * Update for 2.2 release
     61
     62=== 64bit Support ===
     63 * 2.2 Release
     64 * Need to build 64bit Apache/PHP on Windows
     65 * Might be able to just support IIS and then only require 64bit PHP
     66
     67=== www folder in SVN ===
     68 * Delete it
    5469
    5570=== End of meeting ===
     
    5772== Full transcript ==
    5873{{{
     74rbray>  I am going to give folks another minute or two before we start
     75        <jasonbirch>    Howdy all. My attention is a bit limited right now, but I'll try to follow along.
     76        -->|    amorsell (n=chatzill@216-115-120-64.gvea.com) has joined #mapguide
     77        <rbray> <jasonbirch> What? Your A.D.D. worse than usual?
     78        <jasonbirch>    No. unfortunately, it's always this bad...
     79        <jasonbirch>    but more distractions than usual right now.
     80        <rbray> Yea you are not the only one
     81        <rbray> Let's go ahead and start it looks like we have enough
     82        <rbray> Who can volunteer to take minutes today?
     83        <rbray> Thanks Bruce - good of you to volunteer!
     84        <bdechant>      Nice
     85        <bdechant>      :)
     86        <rbray> Sorry but I have a short timeout
     87        <rbray> Update on Actions from Last Meeting
     88        <bdechant>      That's fine I was going to colunteer anyways :)
     89        <bdechant>      *volunteer
     90        <rbray> First one is mine: "document initial process for donations, usage guidelines etc."
     91        <rbray> no progress yet, should stay on the list
     92        <rbray> Next one: "Bob, Bruce, others: Review http://www.jasonbirch.com/nodes/2009/01/31/269/mapguide-rest-extension-feedback-wanted/ by Feb 13, 2009"
     93        <rbray> This one we've reviewed as much as we can, waiting for more details from Harris/Jason
     94        <rbray> Jason - any updates on the state of the REST implementation?
     95        <jasonbirch>    No code yet. Haris got hijacked by "real" work. May be delayed a bit.
     96        <rbray> ok - thanks. Keep us posted
     97        <rbray> Next one: "Paul: Fusion 2.0 beta"
     98        <jasonbirch>    It's out...
     99        <rbray> So then Tom, "Paul + Tom: integration of Fusion 2.0 beta into MGOS in time for MGOS 2.1"
     100        <tomf2> we've integrated
     101        <rbray> so then the last one: "Jason + Kenneth - beta installer by end Feb"
     102        <jasonbirch>    jng has been making good progress on this.
     103        <rbray> I've seen lot's of e-mails so that is promising
     104        <jasonbirch>    I got the installer running last night, but Apache would crash when I hit the mapagent.
     105        <jasonbirch>    And still had to manually configure httpd.conf, php.ini, webconfig.ini.
     106        <jasonbirch>    It's definitely getting there though.
     107        <jasonbirch>    Thank goodness for Jackie :)
     108        <rbray> Good, so maybe another couple of weeks?
     109        <ksgeograf>     I have looked at the WiX IIS integration, and it's not overly well documented, so I'm not sure we can reach the goal of a fully Wix base IIS installer
     110        <jasonbirch>    ksgeograph; have you looked at reverse-engineering a website using dark.exe?
     111        <ksgeograf>     no, I have only read about it
     112        <jasonbirch>    graf... jeepers.
     113        <ksgeograf>     but good idea, I will try that
     114        <tomf2> Are there instructions somewhere on how to build the code and installers? I'd like to give it a try if I get a chance. Sounds like Jackie has created a nice bat file to do this
     115        <jasonbirch>    On Jackie's blog.
     116        <jasonbirch>    just a sec...
     117        <jasonbirch>    http://themapguyde.blogspot.com/2009/03/building-mapguide-on-windows-made.html
     118        <ksgeograf>     I'm trying it out now, it seems to be a *lot* easier to build it now
     119        <jasonbirch>    It's missing a step (the Maestro batch file that copies resources into build dir)
     120        <jasonbirch>    But yes, it makes compiling MapGuide on Windows insanely easier.
     121        <tomf2> thanks
     122        <rbray> awesome - thanks Jason, Kenneth, and Jackie!
     123        <rbray> Tom, you are next on the agenda - Process for voting new committers
     124        <jasonbirch>    Hint... Scroll to the bottom for quick steps :)
     125        <tomf2> Yes, very nice! thanks for your efforts
     126        <tomf2> I read in the Producing OSS book I think that voting new committers in should be done in private
     127        <tomf2> in case we reject someone, then they won't be hurt, I think was the main reason
     128        <jasonbirch>    Hmm.
     129        <jasonbirch>    Could do that I guess.
     130        <jasonbirch>    Proposing also, I guess?
     131        <tomf2> yeah, that was all I had on this topic.
     132        <rbray> Feels odd to do a private vote for some reason
     133        <jasonbirch>    To me also.
     134        <jasonbirch>    Are you worried about excessive number of commiters?
     135        <rbray> There is potential for bad feelings in that approach too
     136        <tomf2> No not at all
     137        <rbray> and of course vote fraud - lol
     138        <tomf2> No one would ever know if they were being considered for committer or not, so how would there be bad feelings?
     139        <jasonbirch>    Perhaps change process so that only PSC can nom committers?
     140        <jasonbirch>    Because right now, any committer can nominate.
     141        <jasonbirch>    Hmm. Technically, I nominated myself illegally...
     142        <rbray> thats it - revoke his commit rights!
     143        <bdechant>      on it :)
     144        <ksgeograf>     I read that manual once. it's written by someone from Collabnet, and they have great experience
     145        <jasonbirch>    that was easier than I expected :)
     146        <tomf2> OK, well, since we are still quite open to new committers (i.e., our bar is obviously low :)) perhaps we can revisit this later
     147        <rbray> yes it was my blueprint for MGOS
     148        <jasonbirch>    Hey, I represent that rempark...
     149        <rbray> Here is the thing
     150        <bdechant>      Since we have so few committers at this time I agree we should postpone it
     151        <rbray> We need committers
     152        <rbray> And people to nominate them
     153        <jasonbirch>    I think the number of different people contributing to Maestro is cool.
     154        <rbray> So I am not currently in favor of limiting nominations or anything else
     155        <jasonbirch>    And fact that we see someone else proposing viable RFC is awesome.
     156        <jasonbirch>    Similar pick up on FDO.
     157        <rbray> Exactly
     158        <jasonbirch>    Perhaps starting to mature a bit.
     159        <tomf2> Re: nomination, I wish I had my book because going on my memory sucks, anyone can nominate someone but that is also supposed to be done in private, and the discussion is supposed to be private among current committers as opposed to the PSC
     160        <rbray> YEa that sounds right
     161        <rbray> hang on - I have the book
     162        <jasonbirch>    Let's leave it open for now. If we get more picky (require certain number of good patches, etc) can change in future.
     163        <ksgeograf>     I found the book online at some time
     164        <jasonbirch>    If you're worried about me nomming someone who doesn't write good code, then I'll refrain from nomming :)
     165        <jasonbirch>    Yes, book is Free.
     166        <ksgeograf>     If someone is nominated publicly, others will be less likely to say no, even if they have valid reasons for doing so
     167        <rbray> Let's leave this as is for now.
     168        <ksgeograf>     But currently, I think the number of possible comitters is so low that it is not a problem
     169        <rbray> Yep
     170        <rbray> Next item is also Tom: 2.1 Beta
     171        <jasonbirch>    Already discussed?
     172        <tomf2> I got my answer. Another couple of weeks.
     173        <ksgeograf>     Found it: http://producingoss.com/
     174        <rbray> That is what I thought - but I wanted to confirm
     175        <tomf2> I'll move the release date on the milestone page out by 2 weeks
     176        <rbray> ksgeograf: Yes that is it. Great book.
     177        <rbray> Ok then, last formal item belongs to Bruce: ACE 5.6
     178        <tomf2> April 2 -> April 16
     179        <rbray> ok - thanks Tom
     180        <bdechant>      I wanted to bring up ACE 5.6 for 2.2 and not for 2.1 - just to clarify
     181        <bdechant>      The main reason is that ACE 5.6 has lots of 64bit fixes
     182        <rbray> So with that you are going to support 64 bit builds?
     183        <bdechant>      I have a working 64bit MapGuide Server and web tier and ACE 5.6 has been very stable
     184        <rbray> nice
     185        <bdechant>      The project files for the server and some of the web have been updated with x64 targets
     186        <bdechant>      There are still some issues left
     187        <rbray> Sounds like you are advocating that we should put it on the roadmap for 2.2 though
     188        <bdechant>      I can go into details as there are really only 2 items :)
     189        <tomf2> Do we do RFCs for these upgrades, or do we just do them?
     190        <bdechant>      Yes!
     191        <bdechant>      RFC - I can take care of that after 2.1
     192        <rbray> I suggest an RFC for the update to ACE 5.6
     193        <tomf2> You don't have to wait for 2.1, you could create an RFC with a 2.2 target
     194        <bdechant>      That's what I meant :)
     195        <rbray> Out of curiosity - what are the two remaining issues?
     196        <tomf2> np
     197        <tomf2> oops, ignore that
     198        <bdechant>      1) Reader ID used by web/server is a raw 32bit pointer - BAD. This will be changed to a lookup table and remove the raw pointer
     199        <bdechant>      2) Apache/PHP - we need to build a 64bit version. There is a project out there that was doing it, but they stopped over a year ago.
     200        <bdechant>      I am using the older version of this 64 bit Apache/PHP
     201        <rbray> there is no 64 bit build of Apache - you have to be kidding me
     202        <jasonbirch>    Is that only on Windows?
     203        <bdechant>      Not kidding - I was disappointed
     204        <bdechant>      I have only investigated it on Windows - so I'm not sure about Linux
     205        <rbray> for Linux you always build it, so I am sure it has 64 bit build options
     206        <jasonbirch>    I think so too.
     207        <bdechant>      That would be my guess
     208        <rbray> ok - neither of those seem like showstoppers
     209        <jasonbirch>    I don't think it would be unreasonable to only support IIS on 64bit Windows.
     210        <tomf2> I bet Jackie could build us a 64-bit version for Windows :)
     211        <ksgeograf>     yeah, it would take him like 30 min
     212        <bdechant>      We still need 64bit PHP on windows even with IIS
     213        <jasonbirch>    Oh crap :)
     214        <rbray> ok, so when is that 2.2 beta with 64 bit support?
     215        <tomf2> Are you asking if we can get it at the same time as the 2.2 beta with 32-bit support?
     216        <jasonbirch>    Is there consideration being given to upgrading Apache and PHP?
     217        <jasonbirch>    Or GEOS, or...
     218        <jasonbirch>    :)
     219        <rbray> I am just pushing
     220        <rbray> We should evaluate other component upgrades as well - for 2.2
     221        <tomf2> Currently, we have 2.2 scheduled for Oct 1. The only item in it is 64-bit support currently.
     222        <bdechant>      If we can get someone to do the 64bit Apache/PHP work - I'm sure it could be in the 2.2 beta :)
     223        <tomf2> Shall we shoot for August for the beta?
     224        <rbray> Sure
     225        <rbray> Let's put 2.2 on our agenda for next time
     226        <rbray> 64bit support and color palette support in that release would be cool
     227        <rbray> Any other items for today?
     228        <tomf2> UV is targeting color palette support for 2.1
     229        <rbray> Not if resource definitions are changing
     230        <rbray> Which I saw in some of the recommendations
     231        <rbray> Depends what it looks like in the end
     232        <tomf2> yes
     233        <rbray> It seems a little late in the game to add a new resource type and change MapDefinition
     234        <rbray> so that is why I figured 2.2
     235        <bdechant>      Agreed
     236        <tomf2> yeah, if it doesn't make 2.1 we'll move it to 2.2
     237        <rbray> Anyway we'll see how hte RFC discussion on that plays out
     238        <rbray> other topics for today?
     239        <rbray> going once...
     240        <jasonbirch>    I
     241        <jasonbirch>    Was thinking that it would be resource data, not resource definition
     242        <jasonbirch>    ?
     243        <rbray> Really?
     244        <jasonbirch>    Oh, it was Tom? who suggested making it its own resource type.
     245        <rbray> Then it could make 2.1 possibly
     246        <jasonbirch>    If he codes fast :)
     247        <bdechant>      The discussion on RFC60 isn't finished yet
     248        <tomf2> Not me, I haven't been involved in this discussion yet
     249        <jasonbirch>    Must have been Bruce then :)
     250        <bdechant>      I believe it was me that suggested it
     251        <tomf2> I have one more item
     252        <jasonbirch>    No, it's not over yet. I think that there was some confusion on my comments.
     253        <rbray> ok
     254        <tomf2> I just noticed that there is still a www directory in the MgDev vault. Can we delete that too?
     255        <tomf2> We recently delete WebStudio. I think that everyone knows that.
     256        <jasonbirch>    Where is the www directory?
     257        <ksgeograf>     if you check out mapguide/trunk/
     258        <ksgeograf>     is there in the root folder
     259        <jasonbirch>    Right, not in MgDev though.
     260        <tomf2> and it takes a long time to download when I get trunk
     261        <bdechant>      correct
     262        <jasonbirch>    I never grab trunk directly; always separate co on MgDev, Installer, etc...
     263        <tomf2> I know, if I was smart I wouldn't download it
     264        <jasonbirch>    Is www used for anyhting?
     265        <tomf2> But, I don't really know what the purpose of this directory is for
     266        <jasonbirch>    Automated update of static Drupal resources?
     267        <jasonbirch>    If not, it could probably be dumped.
     268        <tomf2> We update the web API docs using webdav now
     269        <jasonbirch>    It looks a lot like the old collabnet notation for multilang.
     270        <jasonbirch>    And no updates in over two years.
     271        <jasonbirch>    I'd wager that it's relatively save to remove.
     272        <jasonbirch>    Delete it, and then roll back if something breaks? :)
     273        <rbray> yea I think it can go
     274        <tomf2> lol, who gave Jason commit rights :)
     275        <tomf2> OK, thanks, I'll delete it
     276        <jasonbirch>    Hmm. Too footloose and fancy free for this crowd...
     277        <tomf2> Oh yeah, I gave him the commit rights, never mind
     278        <jasonbirch>    I think we're done?
     279        <rbray> Yep
     280        <rbray> Thanks everyone
     281        <bdechant>      Thanks all
     282        <tomf2> bye
     283        <jasonbirch>    thx. gonna give Haris heck for missing this meeting :)
    59284}}}