| | 29 | jasonbirch> Let's get going :) |
| | 30 | <rbray> ok, then lets start. |
| | 31 | <rbray> First topic is MGOS 1.2.0 RC2 promotion to MGOS 1.2.0 release. |
| | 32 | <rbray> I personally think we have held this up long enough and need to get it out the door. |
| | 33 | <rbray> Andy are you still seeing stability issues? |
| | 34 | <jasonbirch> Me too. BUt I fuess we'll need a new build of FDO. |
| | 35 | -->| HarisK (n=chatzill@84-255-254-95.static.dsl.t-2.net) has joined #mapguide |
| | 36 | <HarisK> Hi |
| | 37 | <pagameba> In talking to some clients, they are very concerned with the (lack of) stability in 1.2 |
| | 38 | <HarisK> Jason thanks for reminder |
| | 39 | <Andy_Morsell> Yes, there are still some major stability issues with GDAL (and/or FDO), but I agree, we can't hold it up any longer. |
| | 40 | <rbray> Hey Harris, just starting to discuss MGOS 1.2 release. |
| | 41 | <pagameba> hi HarisK |
| | 42 | <rbray> Paul, can you summarize the issues? |
| | 43 | <pagameba> their issues may very well be related to GDAL, but I also proposed using the CGI |
| | 44 | <pagameba> the server crashes every few minutes under any kind of load |
| | 45 | <rbray> FastCGI is still a significant problem. I know about that. |
| | 46 | <pagameba> right |
| | 47 | <rbray> With or without Raster? |
| | 48 | -->| danmo (n=dmorisse@157-146.svr.royaume.com) has joined #mapguide |
| | 49 | <pagameba> with raster I think |
| | 50 | <pagameba> I haven't heard back (they are not very communicative when there are no problems) so I'm hoping that CGI fixed some of their problems |
| | 51 | <rbray> OK, anything you can do to isolate it would be very helpful. |
| | 52 | <pagameba> I'll follow up |
| | 53 | <jasonbirch> I gave Jonathon an earlier build of the raster fixes (before biglock) |
| | 54 | <Andy_Morsell> I'm also seeing major raster problems with the Autodesk MGE 2008 provider, so the problem may indeed be deeper. |
| | 55 | <jasonbirch> I'm thinking that the latest raster fixes that FrankW committed should help considerably |
| | 56 | <rbray> Andy: Can you send a summary of these to me and Tom? |
| | 57 | <rbray> Andy: The Autodesk MGE 2008 issues that is. |
| | 58 | <jasonbirch> It's relatively stable for me, but I have only tested with a smaller set of data (20 ECWs, < 100MB each) |
| | 59 | <bdechant> Can you send them to me also Andy please? |
| | 60 | <Andy_Morsell> Yes, Tom is already in the loop and Dave Wilson is working on the issue with some of my clients imagery in hand. |
| | 61 | <rbray> OK, then that is fine. |
| | 62 | <pagameba> should we release 1.2 rc 3 with the latest changes? |
| | 63 | <jasonbirch> I'd say just go final with a new fdo/gdal build. |
| | 64 | <pagameba> and plan to release 1.2 final in a week or so as long as there are no other issues? |
| | 65 | <pagameba> I'm not entirely comfortable with changing a major part of the stack at the last second without an RC |
| | 66 | <jasonbirch> ? |
| | 67 | <rbray> New FDO version I believe is what Paul is refering to. |
| | 68 | <pagameba> right |
| | 69 | <pagameba> unless the FDO thing is just a bugfix |
| | 70 | <jasonbirch> The only part that is changing is GDAL, and I believe that it's a bugfix |
| | 71 | <jasonbirch> Frank added a provider-wide semaphore to work around locking issues |
| | 72 | <pagameba> in the GDAL provider? |
| | 73 | <rbray> Yes |
| | 74 | <pagameba> so why do we need a new build of FDO? |
| | 75 | <rbray> We dont, just the GDAL Provider |
| | 76 | <jasonbirch> The GDAL provider was the only part that changed. |
| | 77 | <rbray> To my knowledge yes |
| | 78 | <jasonbirch> It would be best if there was a 3.2.3 so that people don't get messed up on versions etc. |
| | 79 | <jasonbirch> Otherwise they'll download the 3.2.2 (for Linux) and wonder why raster doesn't work. |
| | 80 | <rbray> Yea, ok I see your point on that. |
| | 81 | <rbray> Which is back to Pauls requirement for a RC3 |
| | 82 | <pagameba> so we do need to up the rev on FDO for the release |
| | 83 | <pagameba> ? |
| | 84 | <jasonbirch> Personally, I think so. |
| | 85 | <rbray> Yes we need to rev FDO. |
| | 86 | <jasonbirch> FDO needs to rev FDO :) |
| | 87 | <pagameba> so there would be new, untested code outside of bugfixes from the last RC in the next release |
| | 88 | <jasonbirch> No there wouldn't (I think) |
| | 89 | <jasonbirch> I don't think the 3.2.x branch has been touched outside of GDAL |
| | 90 | <rbray> That is correct |
| | 91 | <pagameba> where the changes in FDO 3.2.2 to 3.2.3 only in GDAL? |
| | 92 | <rbray> I think that is true too. |
| | 93 | <pagameba> and only to fix the raster stability problem? |
| | 94 | <pagameba> or did other changes happen in FDO as well? |
| | 95 | <rbray> We will need to check the history to be sure, but yes I think so. |
| | 96 | <rbray> That is, there are no other changes. |
| | 97 | <pagameba> ok, if the only changes happened to fix the raster stability then I'm okay with a final release |
| | 98 | <jasonbirch> Uh, the GDAL stuff also has tileindex in it. Not sure when that was added, if it was before last release or not. |
| | 99 | <jasonbirch> This has had far more testing than any earlier raster provider release though. |
| | 100 | <jasonbirch> outside of the MapGuide release cycle. |
| | 101 | <rbray> Lets just ship the thing! |
| | 102 | <HarisK> as I remember, there were also changes in raster column name, because of MapGuide hardcoded strings for WMS provider |
| | 103 | <rbray> After RC2? |
| | 104 | <jasonbirch> No, that's just in the config file that my app generates. |
| | 105 | <HarisK> there were two problems, one getting folter at all |
| | 106 | <HarisK> and than implementing it |
| | 107 | <HarisK> sorry folter == spatial filter |
| | 108 | <rbray> Still sounds like a bug fix. |
| | 109 | <HarisK> yes |
| | 110 | <rbray> So then if we have a couple of bug fixes I would argue we release 1.2.0. |
| | 111 | <HarisK> there is hardcoded raster column name in MapGuide and that was workarround for it |
| | 112 | <rbray> Sounds like there were no major changes. |
| | 113 | <rbray> The biggest problem I am aware of in 1.2 is FastCGI and we have a workaround for that. |
| | 114 | <jasonbirch> I'd ship it. Outside of myself and Andy, nobody else saw problems with the raster provider with earlier RCs. I don't think that further RCs will help. |
| | 115 | <HarisK> +1 |
| | 116 | <rbray> I am hoping to have a mod/isapi extension for testing sooner rather than later. |
| | 117 | <jasonbirch> I was happy to see some code committed around that :) |
| | 118 | <pagameba> +1 |
| | 119 | <rbray> Motion: Release MGOS 1.2.0 with the current set of bug fixes next week. |
| | 120 | <pagameba> +1 |
| | 121 | <jasonbirch> seconded, _1 |
| | 122 | <Andy_Morsell> +1 |
| | 123 | <jasonbirch> That's a + |
| | 124 | <bdechant> +1 |
| | 125 | <HarisK> +1 |
| | 126 | <rbray> And I am +1 |
| | 127 | <rbray> OK. That will happen when our Release Manager returns from vacation. |
| | 128 | <rbray> Next week I think. |
| | 129 | <jasonbirch> I'm guessing that we coordinate with FDO for a 3.2.3 release too? |
| | 130 | <rbray> Bruce do you know if Tom is back on Monday? |
| | 131 | <rbray> Yes Tom will do that. |
| | 132 | <HarisK> release manager on release :) |
| | 133 | <Andy_Morsell> We need to be prepared that MANY more people are likely to experience problems once this hits the streets. But, it's probably the only good way to get more people to start taxing it. |
| | 134 | <bdechant> I believe Tom is back Monday |
| | 135 | <rbray> Yep |
| | 136 | <rbray> OK, next topic is either Fusion or next release. |
| | 137 | <rbray> They are somewhat intertwined. |
| | 138 | <rbray> Paul, do you want to start with the Fusion RFC? |
| | 139 | <pagameba> sure |
| | 140 | <pagameba> I started a page in the wiki |
| | 141 | <pagameba> http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/wiki/MapGuideRfc24 |
| | 142 | <pagameba> I'm not entirely sure how to write it up |
| | 143 | <pagameba> how much detail do we need? |
| | 144 | <rbray> I think we mainly need the integration strategy documented. |
| | 145 | <pagameba> ok |
| | 146 | <rbray> For Fusion we can refer folks to the Demo. |
| | 147 | <rbray> Preview thingy. |
| | 148 | <pagameba> right |
| | 149 | <pagameba> ok |
| | 150 | <jasonbirch> Has everyone had a chance to look at Fusion? |
| | 151 | <pagameba> so I'll try to write up something on how it will be integrated |
| | 152 | <jasonbirch> Has anyone not had a chance to look at Fusion? :) |
| | 153 | <bdechant> Yes :) |
| | 154 | <HarisK> yes :) |
| | 155 | <bdechant> My yes is for looking at it. |
| | 156 | <rbray> Here is a better question. |
| | 157 | <Andy_Morsell> I've looked at it, but haven't tried to integrate it with any of my stuff yet. It looks great, though. |
| | 158 | <rbray> Is everyone in agreement that Fusion should be integrated as part of MGOS? |
| | 159 | <jasonbirch> +1 |
| | 160 | <bdechant> Absolutely!!! |
| | 161 | <bdechant> +1 |
| | 162 | <pagameba> +1 |
| | 163 | <pagameba> ;) |
| | 164 | <pagameba> note that it won't replace the ajax viewer at this point |
| | 165 | <HarisK> instead of existing one or aside ? |
| | 166 | <pagameba> they will co-exist |
| | 167 | <Andy_Morsell> +1 |
| | 168 | <HarisK> I got my answear |
| | 169 | <HarisK> +1 |
| | 170 | <pagameba> the intention being to deprecate the existing viewer in a couple of versions |
| | 171 | <rbray> Any application written using the current AJAX or DWF Viewer will continue to work. |
| | 172 | <pagameba> if everything goes well |
| | 173 | <rbray> right |
| | 174 | <HarisK> Is it possible to have a document what are differencies ? |
| | 175 | <rbray> OK, then Paul I think my earlier answer is right. We document the integration strategy in the RFC and point folks to the preview for info on Fusion itself. |
| | 176 | <pagameba> ok |
| | 177 | <pagameba> perfect |
| | 178 | <rbray> HarrisK: Yes I think we'll need something like that. |
| | 179 | <pagameba> HarisK - everything will be different but it will all be the same, too ;) |
| | 180 | <rbray> OK so this leads to the next discussion. Should the next release of MGOS with Fusion integrated be 1.3 or 2.0? |
| | 181 | <rbray> This is a major new feature from my point of view. |
| | 182 | <jasonbirch> It's a pretty large change, as is the support for JSON |
| | 183 | <rbray> Along with ISAPI and an Apache Mod. |
| | 184 | <jasonbirch> It's an API compatibility break too. |
| | 185 | <bdechant> Because of Fusion and the other changes I think we should call it 2.0 |
| | 186 | <jasonbirch> From a JS perspective) |
| | 187 | <jasonbirch> I agree Bruce |
| | 188 | <Andy_Morsell> I agree, that would make sense. Should get some good press releases out of that too that will highlight the Fusion-ness. |
| | 189 | <rbray> ok, next the timeframe. |
| | 190 | <pagameba> +1 on 2.0 |
| | 191 | <HarisK> MapGuide will be open to other types of viwer I suppose ? |
| | 192 | <rbray> Yes |
| | 193 | <rbray> in many ways Google Earth is a viewer today. |
| | 194 | <rbray> Lets vote on this. Motion: Next release with Fusion will be 2.0 |
| | 195 | <HarisK> we are using one based on Google Web Toolkit |
| | 196 | <jasonbirch> Seconded, +1 |
| | 197 | <Andy_Morsell> Seconded, +1 |
| | 198 | <pagameba> +12 |
| | 199 | <rbray> +1 |
| | 200 | <pagameba> +1 |
| | 201 | <HarisK> +1 |
| | 202 | <pagameba> sorry, didn't mean to use all my votes on one thing ;) |
| | 203 | <rbray> Wow, Paul gets 12 votes now :) |
| | 204 | <bdechant> +1 |
| | 205 | <jasonbirch> I think that, like fdo, we might want to have a place for contributed code. |
| | 206 | <jasonbirch> Like Haris' GWT viewer |
| | 207 | <rbray> Harris, I would like to see a sample of yours at some point... |
| | 208 | <pagameba> good point |
| | 209 | <jasonbirch> My dorky little image catalogue script |
| | 210 | <jasonbirch> etc |
| | 211 | <HarisK> on FOSS4G :) |
| | 212 | <rbray> OK :) |
| | 213 | <pagameba> should fusion be integral to the mapguide svn or can it live its own live outside and be brought in on demand? |
| | 214 | <rbray> I would argue for integration. |
| | 215 | <pagameba> ok, I'll include that in the rfc |
| | 216 | <rbray> Because we plan to replace the existing viewer with Fusion. |
| | 217 | <pagameba> www/fusion/ |
| | 218 | <pagameba> ? |
| | 219 | <pagameba> I have to go in 5 mins |
| | 220 | <pagameba> timing of 2.0 is of interest to me |
| | 221 | <rbray> At some point we will depreciate the existing one is what I meant |
| | 222 | <jasonbirch> I'd argue for adding fusion to the repository in advance of the RFC. |
| | 223 | <jasonbirch> Same as we're doing in FDO for the tools. |
| | 224 | <rbray> OK timing. I would like to shoot for code complete by End of Sept with a Beta in Oct. |
| | 225 | <jasonbirch> It would be nice if we had something downloadable for foss4g... but I guess that's a bit tight :) |
| | 226 | <rbray> It would be nice to release something for FOSS4G but that seems highly optimistic |
| | 227 | <rbray> :) |
| | 228 | <rbray> Paul since a lot of this is your work, you kind of have to help with scheduling. Is the end of Sept/early oct work for code complete? |
| | 229 | <pagameba> yes |
| | 230 | <pagameba> we are almost complete on integrating OpenLayers tiling engine for tiled map support |
| | 231 | <pagameba> once that is in, there is not a lot left to do |
| | 232 | <jasonbirch> YEAH BABY! |
| | 233 | <jasonbirch> (was that out loud? sorry) |
| | 234 | <rbray> oh yea, now that I gotta see |
| | 235 | <rbray> Whens the demo? |
| | 236 | <jasonbirch> Refactoring for the JSON support, I guess Paul? |
| | 237 | <pagameba> that, ApplicationDefinition, internationalization support and a few widgets |
| | 238 | <pagameba> ha |
| | 239 | <pagameba> no demo yet |
| | 240 | <pagameba> soon though |
| | 241 | <rbray> OK, so Paul you will finish the RFC, we'll do the JSON RFC. |
| | 242 | <pagameba> right |
| | 243 | <rbray> and we'll shoot for a beta in Oct. |
| | 244 | <pagameba> +1 |
| | 245 | <pagameba> ok, gotta run |
| | 246 | <rbray> Thanks Paul, see-you later. |
| | 247 | <pagameba> thanks all |
| | 248 | * jasonbirch is hating this. Everyone is having coffee out on the deck outside his office. he's jealous. |
| | 249 | |<-- pagameba has left irc.freenode.net () |
| | 250 | <rbray> Other topics? That was the end of the set agenda. |
| | 251 | <Andy_Morsell> Jason: you have a deck, outside your office? I'm jealous. |
| | 252 | <rbray> Why are you not out there with your laptop? |
| | 253 | <jasonbirch> Only one screen on a laptop. |
| | 254 | <jasonbirch> I prefer the tan I get from my three monitors :) |
| | 255 | <rbray> Ah, a true geek. |
| | 256 | <jasonbirch> I had some comments on commit policy |
| | 257 | <jasonbirch> but have since reconsidered |
| | 258 | <jasonbirch> post-commit hooks would be a pain in the butt |
| | 259 | <rbray> Yea I decided the same thing. |
| | 260 | <rbray> FYI - I will work on updating the RoadMap with our decisions. |
| | 261 | <jasonbirch> I would be happy to see a RFC URL or #123 in the comments though |
| | 262 | <jasonbirch> Or some way of hacking trac so you could just say MapGuideRfc13 and have it link. |
| | 263 | <jasonbirch> Right now, it ignores numbers in camelcase |
| | 264 | <rbray> I think you can put a trac link in there and it will work. |
| | 265 | <rbray> wiki:MapGuideRfc13 for example. |
| | 266 | <jasonbirch> Oh... |
| | 267 | <jasonbirch> That would be cool. |
| | 268 | <rbray> But I have not tried it. |
| | 269 | <rbray> We can probably test that and send out an e-mail to internals requesting that the ticket# or RFC be referred to in the submissions. |
| | 270 | <rbray> I'll take that as an action and assign it to the guy who is not here :) |
| | 271 | <jasonbirch> Just imagine what was on my plate when I got back from three weeks :) |
| | 272 | <rbray> ok, anything else to discuss? |
| | 273 | <jasonbirch> just a minute... |
| | 274 | <rbray> I am slowly making more website changes. The two download pages have now been merged. Will work on the docs pages next. |
| | 275 | <jasonbirch> Cool. Are you starting to get time to breathe too? |
| | 276 | <rbray> No, but you know... |
| | 277 | <JamesCard> Might I submit a request? |
| | 278 | <jasonbirch> Go ahead :) |
| | 279 | <rbray> JamesCard: You could |
| | 280 | <JamesCard> I'm still agonizing through my first install of MGOS on Linux. The default install should probably include PHP support for unixODBC. |
| | 281 | <jasonbirch> JamesCard, put in an enhancement request for that. Oh, that brings up a question I had forgotten about. Build system. |
| | 282 | <rbray> Can you submit a ticket on that. That should just be a change to the PHP config. |
| | 283 | <JamesCard> OK, will do. |
| | 284 | <rbray> What build system? |
| | 285 | <rbray> :) |
| | 286 | <jasonbirch> Did anyone have a chance to look at cmake? |
| | 287 | <rbray> Not yet. |
| | 288 | <jasonbirch> I personally think that it would make life a _lot_ easier for us. |
| | 289 | <jasonbirch> Apparently KDE and MySQL are using it. |
| | 290 | <rbray> Know of any other open source projects that do? |
| | 291 | <jasonbirch> And we have a volunteer to help :) |
| | 292 | <rbray> Well now that is worth a lot. |
| | 293 | <jasonbirch> I think there were a couple but it's been a while since I looked. |
| | 294 | <rbray> Let me get some folks here (at Autodesk) on the buidl team to look at it and we'll report back. |
| | 295 | <rbray> OK folks, I have to run. |
| | 296 | <rbray> Shall we adjourn? |
| | 297 | <bdechant> Sure |
| | 298 | <rbray> Ok, thanks everyone. |
| | 299 | <Andy_Morsell> Good meeting - bye all. |
| | 300 | <bdechant> ttyl |
| | 301 | <jasonbirch> bye all. |
| | 302 | <HarisK> bye |
