Re: [fdo-internals] RFC 27 - Passed

[Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S]

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

I can say that the way Maestro is placed under the same trac instance makes some problems.
I imagine it is annoying to get commit messages from Maestro, if you are working on MapGuide.
I can also see that I get confused when I get a trac ticket that does not explicitly say "Maestro".
There seems to a number of tickets that initally gets assigned to something other than Maestro.
The version numbering does not work well, since Maestro and MapGuide uses different version numberings.

Like Zac notes, it is also difficult to find stuff that is specific to either project.

Are there stuff that the Fusion team belives would work better if they shared the trac with MapGuide?


Zac Spitzer skrev:

As a general question here, would it make more sense to create a separate trac instance
for FDO toolbox?

I am thinking specifically about how this has gone with the mapguide project, fusion for example
was moved to a seperate instance, whilst maestro still lives under mapguide.

It makes it's harder to track core mapguide stuff via timelines and the like due to the volume
or maestro specific stuff..

Thoughts?

z

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Jason Birch <[hidden email]> wrote:

RFC 27 for bringing FDO Toolbox into the FDO fold has passed, with support from Greg, Haris, Frank, Orest, and Jason, which is as good as unanimous these days :)

As soon as the code can be migrated to our SVN and binaries posted on download.osgeo.org, I would like to see an announcement go out via the OSGeo news queue.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/News_Queue

I can draft this if there are no other volunteers.

Jason

________________________________

From: Jason Birch
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] RFC 27 for review

Given that we've heard from most of the PSC and there has been no
negative feedback, I would like to move to accept RFC 27:

 http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc27

+1 Jason


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

--
Zac Spitzer -
http://zacster.blogspot.com (My Blog)
[phone]

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
  

_______________________________________________
fusion-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-dev

[Paul Spencer-2]

Kenneth,

some things might work more easily for us if Fusion were integrated into the MapGuide trac but in general I think it would make life more difficult.  Fusion also supports MapServer and at least some of the bugs and development effort are completely unrelated to MapGuide.  Also, we have a number of components configured in trac that help us organize issues - I think adding all these to MapGuide would be confusing for sure.  At this point, the only hard part is to manage the MapGuide-specific templates that live in the MapGuide vault since tickets get reported in Fusion related to them.

That being said, there is a trac component for Fusion in MapGuide which is useful for MapGuide users - they can create a ticket there and then we create one in Fusion that is more specific if necessary.

Cheers

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2008 4:50am
To: "Fusion Developer List" <[hidden email]>, "FDO Internals Mail List" <[hidden email]>
Subject: [fusion-dev] Re: [fdo-internals] RFC 27 - Passed


I can say that the way Maestro is placed under the same trac instance makes some problems.
I imagine it is annoying to get commit messages from Maestro, if you are working on MapGuide.
I can also see that I get confused when I get a trac ticket that does not explicitly say "Maestro".
There seems to a number of tickets that initally gets assigned to something other than Maestro.
The version numbering does not work well, since Maestro and MapGuide uses different version numberings.

Like Zac notes, it is also difficult to find stuff that is specific to either project.

Are there stuff that the Fusion team belives would work better if they shared the trac with MapGuide?


Zac Spitzer skrev:

As a general question here, would it make more sense to create a separate trac instance
for FDO toolbox?

I am thinking specifically about how this has gone with the mapguide project, fusion for example
was moved to a seperate instance, whilst maestro still lives under mapguide.

It makes it's harder to track core mapguide stuff via timelines and the like due to the volume
or maestro specific stuff..

Thoughts?

z

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Jason Birch <[hidden email]> wrote:

RFC 27 for bringing FDO Toolbox into the FDO fold has passed, with support from Greg, Haris, Frank, Orest, and Jason, which is as good as unanimous these days :)

As soon as the code can be migrated to our SVN and binaries posted on download.osgeo.org, I would like to see an announcement go out via the OSGeo news queue.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/News_Queue

I can draft this if there are no other volunteers.

Jason

________________________________

From: Jason Birch
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] RFC 27 for review

Given that we've heard from most of the PSC and there has been no
negative feedback, I would like to move to accept RFC 27:

 http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc27

+1 Jason


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

--
Zac Spitzer -
http://zacster.blogspot.com (My Blog)
[phone]

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
  

_______________________________________________
fusion-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-dev