| 22 | | PSC Members present: Andy, Bob, Bruce, Jason, Tom, Trevor |
| | 21 | PSC 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 | }}} |
