Changes between Version 4 and Version 5 of PscMeeting05-06-2010


Ignore:
Timestamp:
May 6, 2010 11:52:18 AM (8 years ago)
Author:
tomfukushima
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • PscMeeting05-06-2010

    v4 v5  
    1616 * !MapGuide 2.2 Beta Release (Trevor)
    1717 * Move Maestro up a level in the subversion repository? (Tom)
    18  * TBD
    1918
    2019== Minutes ==
    2120
    22 PSC Members present: Andy, Bob, Bruce, Jason, Tom, Trevor
     21PSC Members present: Andy, Bob, Tom, Trevor
     22
     23=== !MapGuide 2.2 Beta Release ===
     24 * Meta tiling rfc ([http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/wiki/MapGuideRfc90 RFC 90]) code is not ready and will be marked "on hold" and will not be in 2.2.
     25 * Target May 14th for beta.
     26 * Documentation will be light.
     27
     28=== Move Maestro up a level in the subversion repository? ===
     29 * With the direction of Maestro, we should consider moving it up to the root of the MG vault.
     30 * Not enough members to make a decision.  Will continue discussion on email.
     31
     32=== Full transcript ===
     33
     34{{{
     35        <rbray> ok first up is the MapGuide 2.2 Beta Release (Trevor)
     36        <trevorw>       Yep. Just wanted to chat about RFC status.
     37        <trevorw>       The meta tiling RFC seems to be on hold. According to Zac, UV is moving right now.
     38        <trevorw>       Should we wait for it? Ask the list? other?
     39        <rbray> I would defer it personally, what do others think?
     40        <trevorw>       I am ok with defer. I can send an email to -internals suggesting it.
     41        <tom_>  I think we should defer it.
     42        <trevorw>       Ok. That's all I had for the beta. I can do the builds at any time.
     43        <rbray> Ok then let's do it.
     44        <rbray> Can someone change the status of the RFC to "On Hold"?
     45        <trevorw>       Sure. I will put it on hold. End of next week for the beta? The documentation might be a bit light (pretty busy right now).
     46        <rbray> That's ok, as long as we can post the build and provide basic instructions - that's fine.
     47        <trevorw>       Ok. Sounds good. Thanks.
     48        <rbray> The only other item belongs to Tom - Move Maestro up a level in the subversion repository? (Tom)
     49        <tom_>  There was a discussion about moving the Maestro code up in the directory structure so that it could have it's own branching structure. I was originally against this, but after being told the direction of Maestro from Jason I have changed my mind.
     50        <tom_>  Jason wrote: "Although Maestro is linked to MapGuide, it is not a 1:1 relationship (unlike Studio), and has potential to be even less linked over time. Jackie has plans of pulling full FDO Toolbox capabilities into Maestro, I wouldn't be surprised to see support for GeoREST configuration / templating at some point, and who knows... maybe someone will make it create MapServer config files at...
     51        <tom_>  ...some point :) IMO, locking it into the MapGuide release cycle constrains its potential."
     52        <tom_>  It is currently at /Trunk/Tools/Maestro, but I think that we would like to move it to /Maestro. This would mean the root of our vault would be /trunk, /branches, /sandbox, /tags, /Maestro. And then /Maestro would have subdirectories trunk, branches.
     53        <tom_>  (I type fast eh :))
     54        <rbray> you cut and paste well Tom
     55        <rbray> Yea that is ok with me too - anyone object?
     56        <rbray> The other option is to make it, it's own project.
     57        <rbray> But that requires a lot more work.
     58        <trevorw>       I'm good with moving it Mr. cut and paste. Should we put it under Tools/Maestro or just /Maestro
     59        <tom_>  Unfortunately, I think that Jason is the one who objects, and he's not here
     60        <rbray> I would go just /Maestro
     61        <rbray> What's his objection?
     62        <tom_>  From an email: > >>> I think we discussed this when we were initially bringing Maestro in.
     63        <tom_>  > >>>
     64        <tom_>  > >>> It was a while back, but I think the intention was to just use a
     65        <tom_>  > >>> prefix for the Maestro branches (/branches/Maestro-2.1, etc...)
     66        <tom_>  > >>> similar to how its done in tags.
     67        <trevorw>       I like having it as it's own top level folder personally. I think Apache follows similar semantics.
     68        <rbray> ok - let's leave this on e-mail to resolve. I am ok with that approach too, we just need to collectively decide.
     69        <trevorw>       Ok. Works for me too.
     70        <tom_>  OK
     71        <rbray> THat was it for the agenda - any other business?
     72        <trevorw>       (tom's really happy - short PSC meeting...)
     73        <rbray> Me too, I am swamped.
     74        <tom_>  No, but I just saw a posting on mapguide-users that someone is happy with the HTTP API doc
     75        <tom_>  nice work Trevor!
     76        <rbray> Nice work Trevor!
     77        <rbray> dang - and I could have cut and paste if I waited one more second.
     78        <rbray> Ok guys, then we are adjourned.
     79        <rbray> Thanks!
     80        <tom_>  Thanks
     81        <trevorw>       You're welcome and thanks everyone!
     82}}}