Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox
|
|
| 1 2 |
Tom Fukushima
|
Sorry, on rereading, the last comment about the vote should not have been written, please disregard it if you can.
-----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Fukushima Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:02 AM To: MapGuide Internals Mail List Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox Kenneth, Let me reiterate. We don't have a process for the sandbox, until we define the process for setting up sandboxes especially since we have not set up subversion so that sandbox users cannot submit to the mainstream; and how it can be used, etc, I (nor you) cannot go and make arbitrary decisions about it. If I did, I think that would be unfair. I don't think that the definition of a sandbox is in question. It is a place to "play". I am not aware of a request from UV for a sandbox; I don't know why we would reject such a request actually. Honestly, your vote of -0 makes me feel less positive about this project. Tom -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:47 AM To: MapGuide Internals Mail List Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox Tom, I don't think you are being dense. We just see this from different angles. Your request is to allow some qualified developers acceptable working conditions. I totally support that. The more the merrier. But, your request looks very similar to a request made by UV a little while back. His request was denied, because there was no means of getting a sandbox. If I have overlooked a difference in the two requests, I will be happy to be informed of the differences. There may be valid reasons for allowing one request, and not another, but in your mail, it initially appeared to me as if the difference was your confidence in the developers. I don't see that as a valid reason (although I trust your judgement). After re-reading the mail, I can see that your confidence was mentioned to assure us that they would not start commiting to areas they were not supposed to. As for favorism, I don't see anyone else having the privileges that you are requesting for the proposed contributors. And I can't see how anyone else could apply for something like it. As always, I'm gladly corrected. There may also be a misunderstanding about what an "SVN Sandbox" is supposed to be or do. I have my idea of a sandbox from OpenLayers: http://faq.openlayers.org/svn/how-can-i-get-commit-access-to-the-svn-repository/ In the OL sense, a sandbox is a free-for-all playground, where anyone can get access. I am under the impressions that this is possible in MapGuide too, so there is no need to vote on this issue, we should just set it up, free for all. If I misunderstood that part, I would also be happy to be informed. Having a sandbox would potentially open up for many more developers, and make stuff like reviews of specific cases better. I vote -0. I want the developers on board, but I don't like the method. Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S Tom Fukushima skrev: > Kenneth, > > Wow, I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I really don't know where this favoritism feeling is coming from. > > Let me back up a bit... MGOS doesn't have a process for the sandbox, and so I thought I was doing the right thing by making sure to ask the PSC for the rights to the sandbox for some developers. So yes, we need to vote or do something. What did I do wrong to get so much concern about this request? Please tell me, I would like to know? Should I just tell the developers that they should forget this approach? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:49 AM > To: MapGuide Internals Mail List > Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox > > If I understand Frank correctly, it is "easy" to create a sandbox in svn. > With this sandbox anyone (in theory) should be allowed a sandbox area, > for free play and testing. > > If this is so, I don't see the need for this vote. > I think UV would like a sandbox as well. > > The open source handbook: > http://producingoss.com/ > > clearly states that the founding company should not try to bypass the > rules, as that will make the project appear "closed" in the sense that > only "insiders" get commit access, which is the opposite of the goal > with OS software. > > I'm not suggesting that there is foul play here, and I am confident that > the proposed developers are highly skilled, but seen from the outside, > this looks a bit like favorizing the Autodesk people. > > I would suggest that we instead clear up any confusion on the sandbox > issues, > and make sandboxes avalible for those who apply for one. > If there are too many requests for sandboxes, we will have to reconsider > what criteria there should be for applicants. > > Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S > > > > Tom Fukushima skrev: > >> Hi PSC, >> >> I have three developers who will be working in a MGOS sandbox branch that I will be creating for them. I don't want to be submitting all of their patches for them and would prefer if they could commit directly to this branch. Unfortunately, I believe that we can only give submit rights to all or none of our subversion tree. So can we give subversion access to these developers on the condition that they work only in the sandbox? >> >> These developers are >> Hugues Wisniewski >> Jon Curtis >> Norm Olsen >> >> They are all senior Autodesk developers with many many years of development experience. I myself would be fine with giving them access to the full tree, but let's leave that for another discussion. >> >> I move to give Hugues, Jon and Norm, commit rights to a branch in the sandbox/adsk area. >> >> +1 Tom >> >> Thanks >> Tom >> _______________________________________________ >> mapguide-internals mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals >> >> > _______________________________________________ > mapguide-internals mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals > _______________________________________________ > mapguide-internals mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals > mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals _______________________________________________ mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals _______________________________________________ mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals |
||||||||||||||||
Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S
|
You are correct, neither of us can decide rules for the sandbox alone.
You are correct that the sandboxes are not set up, but Frank mentioned that support for it was ready technically. I think we, the PSC, should define the sandbox rules right away. I voted -0, because I do not want to block this, but I think the MapGuide project would benefit more from a general sandbox implementation. Of course, one does not exclude the other, but having an actual use for a sandbox would likely increase the commitment for getting it ready. Using an open sandbox model would also completely remove any speculation about favorizing, should there be any. Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S Tom Fukushima skrev: > Sorry, on rereading, the last comment about the vote should not have been written, please disregard it if you can. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Fukushima > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:02 AM > To: MapGuide Internals Mail List > Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox > > Kenneth, > > Let me reiterate. We don't have a process for the sandbox, until we define the process for setting up sandboxes especially since we have not set up subversion so that sandbox users cannot submit to the mainstream; and how it can be used, etc, I (nor you) cannot go and make arbitrary decisions about it. If I did, I think that would be unfair. > > I don't think that the definition of a sandbox is in question. It is a place to "play". > > I am not aware of a request from UV for a sandbox; I don't know why we would reject such a request actually. > > Honestly, your vote of -0 makes me feel less positive about this project. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:47 AM > To: MapGuide Internals Mail List > Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox > > Tom, > > I don't think you are being dense. We just see this from different angles. > > Your request is to allow some qualified developers acceptable working > conditions. > I totally support that. The more the merrier. > > But, your request looks very similar to a request made by UV a little while > back. His request was denied, because there was no means of getting a > sandbox. > > If I have overlooked a difference in the two requests, I will be happy to > be informed of the differences. > > There may be valid reasons for allowing one request, and not another, but in > your mail, it initially appeared to me as if the difference was your > confidence > in the developers. I don't see that as a valid reason (although I trust > your > judgement). > > After re-reading the mail, I can see that your confidence was mentioned > to assure us > that they would not start commiting to areas they were not supposed to. > > As for favorism, I don't see anyone else having the privileges that you > are requesting > for the proposed contributors. And I can't see how anyone else could > apply for something > like it. As always, I'm gladly corrected. > > There may also be a misunderstanding about what an "SVN Sandbox" is > supposed to be or do. > I have my idea of a sandbox from OpenLayers: > http://faq.openlayers.org/svn/how-can-i-get-commit-access-to-the-svn-repository/ > > In the OL sense, a sandbox is a free-for-all playground, where anyone > can get access. > I am under the impressions that this is possible in MapGuide too, so > there is no > need to vote on this issue, we should just set it up, free for all. > > If I misunderstood that part, I would also be happy to be informed. > > Having a sandbox would potentially open up for many more developers, and > make > stuff like reviews of specific cases better. > > I vote -0. > I want the developers on board, but I > don't like the method. > > Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S > > > > Tom Fukushima skrev: > >> Kenneth, >> >> Wow, I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I really don't know where this favoritism feeling is coming from. >> >> Let me back up a bit... MGOS doesn't have a process for the sandbox, and so I thought I was doing the right thing by making sure to ask the PSC for the rights to the sandbox for some developers. So yes, we need to vote or do something. What did I do wrong to get so much concern about this request? Please tell me, I would like to know? Should I just tell the developers that they should forget this approach? >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S >> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:49 AM >> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List >> Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox >> >> If I understand Frank correctly, it is "easy" to create a sandbox in svn. >> With this sandbox anyone (in theory) should be allowed a sandbox area, >> for free play and testing. >> >> If this is so, I don't see the need for this vote. >> I think UV would like a sandbox as well. >> >> The open source handbook: >> http://producingoss.com/ >> >> clearly states that the founding company should not try to bypass the >> rules, as that will make the project appear "closed" in the sense that >> only "insiders" get commit access, which is the opposite of the goal >> with OS software. >> >> I'm not suggesting that there is foul play here, and I am confident that >> the proposed developers are highly skilled, but seen from the outside, >> this looks a bit like favorizing the Autodesk people. >> >> I would suggest that we instead clear up any confusion on the sandbox >> issues, >> and make sandboxes avalible for those who apply for one. >> If there are too many requests for sandboxes, we will have to reconsider >> what criteria there should be for applicants. >> >> Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S >> >> >> >> Tom Fukushima skrev: >> >> >>> Hi PSC, >>> >>> I have three developers who will be working in a MGOS sandbox branch that I will be creating for them. I don't want to be submitting all of their patches for them and would prefer if they could commit directly to this branch. Unfortunately, I believe that we can only give submit rights to all or none of our subversion tree. So can we give subversion access to these developers on the condition that they work only in the sandbox? >>> >>> These developers are >>> Hugues Wisniewski >>> Jon Curtis >>> Norm Olsen >>> >>> They are all senior Autodesk developers with many many years of development experience. I myself would be fine with giving them access to the full tree, but let's leave that for another discussion. >>> >>> I move to give Hugues, Jon and Norm, commit rights to a branch in the sandbox/adsk area. >>> >>> +1 Tom >>> >>> Thanks >>> Tom >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mapguide-internals mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> mapguide-internals mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals >> _______________________________________________ >> mapguide-internals mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals >> >> > _______________________________________________ > mapguide-internals mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals > _______________________________________________ > mapguide-internals mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals > _______________________________________________ > mapguide-internals mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals > mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals |
||||||||||||||||
|
Tom Fukushima
|
Thanks for the clarifcation.
-----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:22 AM To: MapGuide Internals Mail List Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox You are correct, neither of us can decide rules for the sandbox alone. You are correct that the sandboxes are not set up, but Frank mentioned that support for it was ready technically. I think we, the PSC, should define the sandbox rules right away. I voted -0, because I do not want to block this, but I think the MapGuide project would benefit more from a general sandbox implementation. Of course, one does not exclude the other, but having an actual use for a sandbox would likely increase the commitment for getting it ready. Using an open sandbox model would also completely remove any speculation about favorizing, should there be any. Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S Tom Fukushima skrev: > Sorry, on rereading, the last comment about the vote should not have been written, please disregard it if you can. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Fukushima > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:02 AM > To: MapGuide Internals Mail List > Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox > > Kenneth, > > Let me reiterate. We don't have a process for the sandbox, until we define the process for setting up sandboxes especially since we have not set up subversion so that sandbox users cannot submit to the mainstream; and how it can be used, etc, I (nor you) cannot go and make arbitrary decisions about it. If I did, I think that would be unfair. > > I don't think that the definition of a sandbox is in question. It is a place to "play". > > I am not aware of a request from UV for a sandbox; I don't know why we would reject such a request actually. > > Honestly, your vote of -0 makes me feel less positive about this project. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:47 AM > To: MapGuide Internals Mail List > Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox > > Tom, > > I don't think you are being dense. We just see this from different angles. > > Your request is to allow some qualified developers acceptable working > conditions. > I totally support that. The more the merrier. > > But, your request looks very similar to a request made by UV a little while > back. His request was denied, because there was no means of getting a > sandbox. > > If I have overlooked a difference in the two requests, I will be happy to > be informed of the differences. > > There may be valid reasons for allowing one request, and not another, but in > your mail, it initially appeared to me as if the difference was your > confidence > in the developers. I don't see that as a valid reason (although I trust > your > judgement). > > After re-reading the mail, I can see that your confidence was mentioned > to assure us > that they would not start commiting to areas they were not supposed to. > > As for favorism, I don't see anyone else having the privileges that you > are requesting > for the proposed contributors. And I can't see how anyone else could > apply for something > like it. As always, I'm gladly corrected. > > There may also be a misunderstanding about what an "SVN Sandbox" is > supposed to be or do. > I have my idea of a sandbox from OpenLayers: > http://faq.openlayers.org/svn/how-can-i-get-commit-access-to-the-svn-repository/ > > In the OL sense, a sandbox is a free-for-all playground, where anyone > can get access. > I am under the impressions that this is possible in MapGuide too, so > there is no > need to vote on this issue, we should just set it up, free for all. > > If I misunderstood that part, I would also be happy to be informed. > > Having a sandbox would potentially open up for many more developers, and > make > stuff like reviews of specific cases better. > > I vote -0. > I want the developers on board, but I > don't like the method. > > Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S > > > > Tom Fukushima skrev: > >> Kenneth, >> >> Wow, I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I really don't know where this favoritism feeling is coming from. >> >> Let me back up a bit... MGOS doesn't have a process for the sandbox, and so I thought I was doing the right thing by making sure to ask the PSC for the rights to the sandbox for some developers. So yes, we need to vote or do something. What did I do wrong to get so much concern about this request? Please tell me, I would like to know? Should I just tell the developers that they should forget this approach? >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S >> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:49 AM >> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List >> Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox >> >> If I understand Frank correctly, it is "easy" to create a sandbox in svn. >> With this sandbox anyone (in theory) should be allowed a sandbox area, >> for free play and testing. >> >> If this is so, I don't see the need for this vote. >> I think UV would like a sandbox as well. >> >> The open source handbook: >> http://producingoss.com/ >> >> clearly states that the founding company should not try to bypass the >> rules, as that will make the project appear "closed" in the sense that >> only "insiders" get commit access, which is the opposite of the goal >> with OS software. >> >> I'm not suggesting that there is foul play here, and I am confident that >> the proposed developers are highly skilled, but seen from the outside, >> this looks a bit like favorizing the Autodesk people. >> >> I would suggest that we instead clear up any confusion on the sandbox >> issues, >> and make sandboxes avalible for those who apply for one. >> If there are too many requests for sandboxes, we will have to reconsider >> what criteria there should be for applicants. >> >> Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S >> >> >> >> Tom Fukushima skrev: >> >> >>> Hi PSC, >>> >>> I have three developers who will be working in a MGOS sandbox branch that I will be creating for them. I don't want to be submitting all of their patches for them and would prefer if they could commit directly to this branch. Unfortunately, I believe that we can only give submit rights to all or none of our subversion tree. So can we give subversion access to these developers on the condition that they work only in the sandbox? >>> >>> These developers are >>> Hugues Wisniewski >>> Jon Curtis >>> Norm Olsen >>> >>> They are all senior Autodesk developers with many many years of development experience. I myself would be fine with giving them access to the full tree, but let's leave that for another discussion. >>> >>> I move to give Hugues, Jon and Norm, commit rights to a branch in the sandbox/adsk area. >>> >>> +1 Tom >>> >>> Thanks >>> Tom >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mapguide-internals mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> mapguide-internals mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals >> _______________________________________________ >> mapguide-internals mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals >> >> > _______________________________________________ > mapguide-internals mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals > _______________________________________________ > mapguide-internals mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals > _______________________________________________ > mapguide-internals mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals > mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals _______________________________________________ mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals |
||||||||||||||||
Robert Bray-2
|
In reply to this post
by Tom Fukushima
So I've read this whole thread with great interest. I believe we should get
a general sandbox approach setup as soon as possible. I liked Jason's idea of project-oriented sandboxes rather than people-oriented ones, however I also realize that the technology probably does not work quite that way. Maybe we could require/request some documentation around the various projects in the sandbox be available and kept current on the Wiki. Anyway I am +1 on sandbox access for the named developers. Also I believe the sandbox concept should be a priority for the PSC. We should strive to be as open as open layers with respect to sandbox access. This is a great way to get developers involved. Bob -------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Fukushima" <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 4:57 PM To: "MapGuide Internals Mail List" <[hidden email]> Subject: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to workin a sandbox > Hi PSC, > > I have three developers who will be working in a MGOS sandbox branch that > I will be creating for them. I don't want to be submitting all of their > patches for them and would prefer if they could commit directly to this > branch. Unfortunately, I believe that we can only give submit rights to > all or none of our subversion tree. So can we give subversion access to > these developers on the condition that they work only in the sandbox? > > These developers are > Hugues Wisniewski > Jon Curtis > Norm Olsen > > They are all senior Autodesk developers with many many years of > development experience. I myself would be fine with giving them access to > the full tree, but let's leave that for another discussion. > > I move to give Hugues, Jon and Norm, commit rights to a branch in the > sandbox/adsk area. > > +1 Tom > > Thanks > Tom > _______________________________________________ > mapguide-internals mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals _______________________________________________ mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals |
||||||||||||||||
|
Tom Fukushima
|
In reply to this post
by Tom Fukushima
This motion has been approved. I will provide Hugues and Norm with access once they have sent me their login IDs and signed CLAs (if I don't have it already).
Vote: +1: Tom, Paul, Andy, Haris, Bruce, Bob 0: Jason -0: Kenneth -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Fukushima Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 4:58 PM To: MapGuide Internals Mail List Subject: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox Hi PSC, I have three developers who will be working in a MGOS sandbox branch that I will be creating for them. I don't want to be submitting all of their patches for them and would prefer if they could commit directly to this branch. Unfortunately, I believe that we can only give submit rights to all or none of our subversion tree. So can we give subversion access to these developers on the condition that they work only in the sandbox? These developers are Hugues Wisniewski Jon Curtis Norm Olsen They are all senior Autodesk developers with many many years of development experience. I myself would be fine with giving them access to the full tree, but let's leave that for another discussion. I move to give Hugues, Jon and Norm, commit rights to a branch in the sandbox/adsk area. +1 Tom Thanks Tom _______________________________________________ mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals _______________________________________________ mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals |
||||||||||||||||
Samuel Berger
|
In reply to this post
by Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S
Hello
I have a question. First, as my English could be understood wrong, I want to make sure that I'm not at all demanding anything, I'd just like to ask some info I could not find on the web page nor in the mailing list. The first release date of MapGuide 2.1 was in October or November 2008. As selection-overlay image is primordial for us (otherwise selection is far too slow), we are just longing for that release. Now, a beta version of MapGuide is out. But there is a bug on point-feature selection making MapGuide server hang. This was fixed in ticket http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/ticket/1001, but it could not make it into the beta. Is there another pre-version planned in the next days? Best of course would be nightly builds. What is the status of the build OTX server? If this is more a matter of weeks than days, is it possible to ask for some help to setup our own installer-build-environment? Jason suggested to do such things in a public forum. That would be great! Sam Samuel Berger +41(0)43 344 12 48 [hidden email] _______________________________________________ mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals |
Trevor Wekel
|
Hi Sam,
We do have a build environment set up. I am currently doing some network and machine reconfiguration so the build server has been offline for a couple of days. It should be back up near the end of the week. Once it is back up, we still need to complete the installer integration into the automated build process. Thanks, Trevor -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Samuel Berger Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:44 AM To: 'MapGuide Internals Mail List' Subject: [mapguide-internals] Status of nightly builds Hello I have a question. First, as my English could be understood wrong, I want to make sure that I'm not at all demanding anything, I'd just like to ask some info I could not find on the web page nor in the mailing list. The first release date of MapGuide 2.1 was in October or November 2008. As selection-overlay image is primordial for us (otherwise selection is far too slow), we are just longing for that release. Now, a beta version of MapGuide is out. But there is a bug on point-feature selection making MapGuide server hang. This was fixed in ticket http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/ticket/1001, but it could not make it into the beta. Is there another pre-version planned in the next days? Best of course would be nightly builds. What is the status of the build OTX server? If this is more a matter of weeks than days, is it possible to ask for some help to setup our own installer-build-environment? Jason suggested to do such things in a public forum. That would be great! Sam Samuel Berger +41(0)43 344 12 48 [hidden email] _______________________________________________ mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals _______________________________________________ mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals |
||||||||||||||||
|
Tom Fukushima
|
In reply to this post
by Frank Warmerdam
I have filed a ticket (http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/400) for this.
Tom -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Warmerdam Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:21 AM To: MapGuide Internals Mail List Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Motion: Give developers commit rights to work in a sandbox Folks, Per the "Authz Rules" section of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Subversion we are now capable of managing a distinct commit group for subareas of a repository - typically for /sandbox type areas with a more permissive participation process. Just file a SAC ticket with the particulars of what you need when you are ready and Howard or I should be able to implement it. Best regards, Paul Spencer wrote: > PS I believe that Chris Schmidt was working on making it possible to set > up more fine grained commit rights, perhaps a quick question to SAC > might resolve this. > > On 24-Jun-09, at 6:57 PM, Tom Fukushima wrote: > >> Hi PSC, >> >> I have three developers who will be working in a MGOS sandbox branch >> that I will be creating for them. I don't want to be submitting all >> of their patches for them and would prefer if they could commit >> directly to this branch. Unfortunately, I believe that we can only >> give submit rights to all or none of our subversion tree. So can we >> give subversion access to these developers on the condition that they >> work only in the sandbox? -- ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent _______________________________________________ mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals _______________________________________________ mapguide-internals mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals |
||||||||||||||||
| Free Embeddable Forum Powered by Nabble | Help |
