Summary section please

5 messages Options
Embed this post
Permalink
Cameron Shorter

Summary section please

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
On the "Provenence Review" page, I think there should be "Summary"
section, which contains more information that the current "Status" section.
It should summarise the full status of the Provenance Review, and assign
a date, as the status will be different in the future.
I reckon it should contain mention:

* Date
* A full provenance review of geotools source code has been done to
ensure it is LGPL compliant.
* We consider the code is suitable for distribution. ...
* 2 major concerns were found, ArcSDE and Oracle, and they *have been
removed* from the code.
* Other lessor issues were identified, as listed in ... These issues are
being addressed by the Geotools community.

---
Apart from that, I think the documentation is looking good.

--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Systems Architect
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Commercial Support for Geospatial Open Source Solutions
http://www.lisasoft.com/LISAsoft/SupportedProducts.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
Geotools-administration mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-administration
Jody Garnett-2

Re: Summary section please

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Cameron Shorter wrote:
> On the "Provenence Review" page, I think there should be "Summary"
> section, which contains more information that the current "Status" section.
> It should summarise the full status of the Provenance Review, and assign
> a date, as the status will be different in the future.
> I reckon it should contain mention:
>
> * Date
>  
So July 9th
> * A full provenance review of geotools source code has been done to ensure it is LGPL compliant.
>  
A full review has been done to check the code for LGPL compliance; we
have noted several exceptions (and we can list the bug numbers)
> * We consider the code is suitable for distribution. ...
>  
Yep
> * 2 major concerns were found, ArcSDE and Oracle, and they *have been removed* from the code
>  
They were removed from the code right away; and then restored to the
build as a workaround was produced.
> * Other lessor issues were identified, as listed in ... These issues are being addressed by the Geotools community.
>  
Do to want a link to the known issues there?

-----

I found on this page
(http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoTools_Project_Status) a section near the
end where it links to the provenence review page and talks about issues.
I have updated this information.


Cameron I am not sure if we should provide a summary? The other projects
did not ... they expected the committee to read the review document; the
fact that this document is massive for geotools should not effect that
should it?

Jody

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
Geotools-administration mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-administration
Cameron Shorter

Re: Summary section please

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Re question at bottom of this email:
"Do we ready need a Summary?"

No, you don't need a Summary, but all good technical documents have one,
and I don't think a providence review should be any different.
There will be many people likely to start reading this document, and
most of them don't want to know the details. A summary allows a reader
to quickly determine whether it is worth their while continuing to the
end or not.

Jody Garnett wrote:

> Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> On the "Provenence Review" page, I think there should be "Summary"
>> section, which contains more information that the current "Status"
>> section.
>> It should summarise the full status of the Provenance Review, and
>> assign a date, as the status will be different in the future.
>> I reckon it should contain mention:
>>
>> * Date
>>  
> So July 9th
>> * A full provenance review of geotools source code has been done to
>> ensure it is LGPL compliant.
>>  
> A full review has been done to check the code for LGPL compliance; we
> have noted several exceptions (and we can list the bug numbers)
>> * We consider the code is suitable for distribution. ...
>>  
> Yep
>> * 2 major concerns were found, ArcSDE and Oracle, and they *have been
>> removed* from the code
>>  
> They were removed from the code right away; and then restored to the
> build as a workaround was produced.
>> * Other lessor issues were identified, as listed in ... These issues
>> are being addressed by the Geotools community.
>>  
> Do to want a link to the known issues there?
>
> -----
>
> I found on this page
> (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoTools_Project_Status) a section near
> the end where it links to the provenence review page and talks about
> issues. I have updated this information.
>
>
> Cameron I am not sure if we should provide a summary? The other
> projects did not ... they expected the committee to read the review
> document; the fact that this document is massive for geotools should
> not effect that should it?
>
> Jody


--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Systems Architect
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Commercial Support for Geospatial Open Source Solutions
http://www.lisasoft.com/LISAsoft/SupportedProducts.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
Geotools-administration mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-administration
Jody Garnett

Re: Summary section please

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Hi Cameron; just a follow up here - I updated the status page here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoTools_Project_Status#Code_Copyright_Review
Does this serve as a good summary of the issues raised? I think it does
and have copied this text over the the project status page.

All the best,
Jody

Cameron Shorter wrote:

> Re question at bottom of this email:
> "Do we ready need a Summary?"
>
> No, you don't need a Summary, but all good technical documents have
> one, and I don't think a providence review should be any different.
> There will be many people likely to start reading this document, and
> most of them don't want to know the details. A summary allows a reader
> to quickly determine whether it is worth their while continuing to the
> end or not.
>
> Jody Garnett wrote:
>> I found on this page
>> (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoTools_Project_Status) a section near
>> the end where it links to the provenence review page and talks about
>> issues. I have updated this information.
>>
>> Cameron I am not sure if we should provide a summary? The other
>> projects did not ... they expected the committee to read the review
>> document; the fact that this document is massive for geotools should
>> not effect that should it?
>>
>> Jody
>
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
Geotools-administration mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-administration
Cameron Shorter

Re: Summary section please

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
I suggest you also include a summary of findings.
(some issues raised, these issues are going to be fixed and are not
critical  ...)

Jody Garnett wrote:

> Hi Cameron; just a follow up here - I updated the status page here:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoTools_Project_Status#Code_Copyright_Review
> Does this serve as a good summary of the issues raised? I think it
> does and have copied this text over the the project status page.
>
> All the best,
> Jody
>
> Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> Re question at bottom of this email:
>> "Do we ready need a Summary?"
>>
>> No, you don't need a Summary, but all good technical documents have
>> one, and I don't think a providence review should be any different.
>> There will be many people likely to start reading this document, and
>> most of them don't want to know the details. A summary allows a
>> reader to quickly determine whether it is worth their while
>> continuing to the end or not.
>>
>> Jody Garnett wrote:
>>> I found on this page
>>> (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoTools_Project_Status) a section near
>>> the end where it links to the provenence review page and talks about
>>> issues. I have updated this information.
>>>
>>> Cameron I am not sure if we should provide a summary? The other
>>> projects did not ... they expected the committee to read the review
>>> document; the fact that this document is massive for geotools should
>>> not effect that should it?
>>>
>>> Jody
>>
>>
>


--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Systems Architect
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Commercial Support for Geospatial Open Source Solutions
http://www.lisasoft.com/LISAsoft/SupportedProducts.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
Geotools-administration mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-administration