Changes between Version 4 and Version 5 of TinyOWSModGeocacheIntegration
- Timestamp:
- Aug 5, 2011, 7:44:18 AM (13 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
TinyOWSModGeocacheIntegration
v4 v5 8 8 * Olivier Courtin to be added to the MapServer PSC as owner of the TinyOWS module 9 9 * Thomas Bonfort is already on the PSC and will act as owner of the mod-Geocache module 10 * It is understood that even though the ultimate decision authority is the PSC and the merged projects will have to follow the PSC rules (RFCs, etc.), the recommendations of a module owner are most of the time followed and the PSC does not get in the way of a module owner trying to make enhancements to the software, unless other devs envision spossible issues, in which case the group works together to define a better solution. (in other words, Oliver and Thomas will remain the technical leads of their respective modules and the PSC will do its best to support them in their work)10 * It is understood that even though the ultimate decision authority is the PSC and the merged projects will have to follow the PSC rules (RFCs, etc.), the recommendations of a module owner are most of the time followed and the PSC does not get in the way of a module owner trying to make enhancements to the software, unless other devs envision possible issues, in which case the group works together to define a better solution. (in other words, Oliver and Thomas will remain the technical leads of their respective modules and the PSC will do its best to support them in their work) 11 11 12 12 == Sub-project names == … … 14 14 * How do we refer to the two sub-projects once merged? Do we call them sub-projects? Modules? Components? 15 15 * If we want the whole thing to be promoted as a "MapServer Suite" (or stack, or ....) then we need clear names for each component 16 * MapServer core needs a name (or do we just call it "MapServer core" ... or CGI? 17 * MapS ript?18 * RFC 70 says nothing about the way thepreferred name for TinyOWS after the merge16 * MapServer core needs a name (or do we just call it "MapServer core" ... or CGI?) 17 * MapScript? 18 * RFC 70 says nothing about the preferred name for TinyOWS after the merge 19 19 * RFC 71: “Mod-Geocache” as a name is a poor choice, and should be changed during the integration with MapServer. The author has no predefined idea as to what the solution should be named, ideas will be greatly appreciated. 20 20 … … 31 31 * Release numbering? 32 32 * MapServer 6.x, TinyOWS 1.x, Mod-Geocache 0.4 ... confusing if we want to appear as a unified project... and then which version number do we give to the complete suite when we release as a whole? 33 * Adopt a common release numbering scheme? e.g. Ubuntu-style based on year.month? Would allow intermediate releases by component, while having consistent release numbers between all components... e.g. MapServer suite with all components initially released as 11.08 (august 2011), next major release of MapServer core planned for early 2012, but in the meantime sub-projects can be released as 11.10, 11.11, etc... and next full suite release (including MapServer core) could be around February as v12.2? This also allows for bugfix releases as 11.8.1, 11.8.2, etc.33 * Maybe adopt a common release numbering scheme? e.g. Ubuntu-style based on year.month? Would allow intermediate releases by component, while having consistent release numbers between all components over time... e.g. MapServer suite with all components initially released as 11.08 (august 2011), next major release of MapServer core planned for early 2012, but in the meantime sub-projects can be released as 11.10, 11.11, etc... and next full suite release (including MapServer core) could be around February as v12.2? This also allows for bugfix releases as 11.8.1, 11.8.2, etc. 34 34 * Other options? 35 35 … … 38 38 39 39 * Single build system or multiple/separate ones? It seems that we need a mix of both... 40 * Linux uses autoconf + Makefiles in all cases ... a merge, or at least some sharing is feasible40 * Linux: uses autoconf + Makefiles in all cases ... a merge, or at least some sharing is feasible 41 41 * What about Windows? 42 42 … … 48 48 * mod-geocache-0.4.0.tar.gz 49 49 * What about the combined suite? Do we ever want to distribute it as a single source package or not? 50 * Any naming recommendations for binary packagers?50 * Any naming or other packaging recommendations for binary packagers? 51 51 52 52 == Mailing lists == 53 53 54 * Okayto use the existing mapserver lists?54 * All projects to use the existing mapserver lists? 55 55 * RFC 70 says: tinyows-dev and tinyows-users should be stopped and news discussions should occurs to relevant mapserver ones. 56 56 * RFC 71 has nothing explicit but mentions the switch to mapserver-dev (which would imply mapserver-users as well)
