| 22 | | PSC Members present: |
| | 22 | PSC Members present: Bob, Harris, Bruce, Tom, Trevor, Kenneth |
| | 23 | |
| | 24 | == Updates on HTTP API docs == |
| | 25 | Trevor will make HTTP API doc templates ready for mid. feb.[[BR]] |
| | 26 | |
| | 27 | == Ticket cleanup == |
| | 28 | Jason was not present, but Kenneth guesses that the initial cleanup is done.[[BR]] |
| | 29 | |
| | 30 | == MapGuide 2.2 release schedule == |
| | 31 | Current milestone is March 15th for beta, June 15th for release.[[BR]] |
| | 32 | Tom will update the milestone dates.[[BR]] |
| | 33 | |
| | 34 | Expected release is 32 and 64 bit for windows (with 32bit webtier/apache/php),[[BR]] |
| | 35 | and 32 bit linux.[[BR]] |
| | 36 | Trevor will look into problems with 64bit linux support.[[BR]] |
| | 37 | |
| | 38 | Loose ends are: 64 bit support in installer, and new FDO providers in installer.[[BR]] |
| | 39 | Jason should have be able to estimate the effort required for these two.[[BR]] |
| | 40 | |
| | 41 | Tom will see if any RFC's are not being adressed in 2.2 which should be.[[BR]] |
| | 42 | |
| | 43 | == Others? == |
| | 44 | Rasters will hopefully be more stable in 2.2.[[BR]] |
| | 45 | Branching 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 | }}} |
