| | 22 | <rbray> Ok, sorry about that. I am ready to start. |
| | 23 | <rbray> Tom can you give us an update on the Beta. |
| | 24 | <tomf1> Yes |
| | 25 | <tomf1> We are upgrading the MGOS isntalls to the latest FDO beta posted on osgeo.org |
| | 26 | <tomf1> We should have new installs available for next week. It will also have GDAL 1.4.4 compliant FDO provider |
| | 27 | <tomf1> so ECW and MrSID support will be back |
| | 28 | <tomf1> So beta 2 early next week |
| | 29 | <tomf1> That's it. |
| | 30 | <rbray> Where are we with bugs. |
| | 31 | <tomf1> Oh, some more of the documentation should come back online too, as I get around to that. |
| | 32 | <rbray> Will it also include a new fusion drop, with some bug fixes / enhancements? |
| | 33 | <tomf1> It will include bug fixes in all aspects of the product. |
| | 34 | <tomf1> I'll try to set up a trac query that has the list of fixed tickets between the two builds. I don't have that right now |
| | 35 | <rbray> Anyone have any concerns? Any specific items that need to be addressed for Beta 2 beyond what Tom mentioned? |
| | 36 | <geojason> There were some installer issues... |
| | 37 | <geojason> like adding the json mime type properly, and... |
| | 38 | <geojason> Not allowing an install on the same machine as 1.2 |
| | 39 | <geojason> Any chance these can be remedied? |
| | 40 | <geojason> the json thing was just for IIS6/Win2k3 |
| | 41 | <tomf1> We are working on the mime type issue |
| | 42 | <tomf1> There is nothing being done about side-by-side install capabilities of MGOS |
| | 43 | <geojason> Even if the installer completed and the user had to change the ports, it would be better than seeing it as "same product" and halting the install. |
| | 44 | <tomf1> That's good to know |
| | 45 | <rbray> Yea I agree with that. |
| | 46 | <rbray> They will run side by side fine with some tweaking. Let them tweak. |
| | 47 | <geojason> The user has to be savvy enough to pass an alternate install path to the installer in the first place :) |
| | 48 | <tomf1> I'll talk to Tim about that. No guarantees though |
| | 49 | <geojason> k :) |
| | 50 | <rbray> Other issues or concerns going into Beta2? |
| | 51 | <rbray> OK. |
| | 52 | <tomf1> One sec |
| | 53 | <rbray> holding |
| | 54 | <tomf1> Were there plans before about doing builds on a OSGeo server? |
| | 55 | <tomf1> What happened with that? |
| | 56 | <rbray> Dunno. I think that is still waiting for some brave soul to adopt it. |
| | 57 | <geojason> We can still do it... |
| | 58 | <geojason> Just have to get some time from Mat :) |
| | 59 | <rbray> I do not want to hold up Beta or RCs for that though. |
| | 60 | <geojason> Oh, and some commandline build scripts would help. |
| | 61 | <geojason> No, no kidding. |
| | 62 | <tomf1> OK, just thinking that that might be a way we could get stuff that we want into the installer as well. |
| | 63 | <tomf1> Done |
| | 64 | <rbray> OK |
| | 65 | <geojason> Yes, I have plans to look at NSIS when I have a second. or three-hundred. It looks easy. :) |
| | 66 | <rbray> Beta Test Servers. |
| | 67 | <geojason> Really hard to get it to do everything the InstallShield installer does, but maybe good enough. |
| | 68 | <rbray> We have the infrastructrue to host these, but probably not the bandwidth to keep them running. |
| | 69 | <rbray> Any volunteers willing to help? |
| | 70 | <rbray> Wow, don't everyone jump at once. |
| | 71 | <geojason> bandwidth? |
| | 72 | <Andy_Morsell> I can probably help, but am somewhat bandwidth challenged lately myself. |
| | 73 | <rbray> People time. |
| | 74 | <geojason> oh, sorry. I'm hardware-centric today. |
| | 75 | <geojason> What does that entail? Rolling back the VMWare image once in a while? :) |
| | 76 | <rbray> I think all we need is a small group to each pitch in a little here and there. Not a big commitment. |
| | 77 | <geojason> I'm game... |
| | 78 | <geojason> Are these Linux or Windows? |
| | 79 | <rbray> I'd like one more. |
| | 80 | <geojason> And.. are they VM? |
| | 81 | <rbray> They are VM's and Windows. |
| | 82 | <geojason> Will we have access to the root vm console to roll back if necessary? |
| | 83 | <HarisK> I am not sure what it means but I am willing to be in |
| | 84 | <geojason> Hey, HarisK ! welcome, I didn't see you there. |
| | 85 | <rbray> HarisK: Thanks. Just monitoring, restarting them, stuff like that. |
| | 86 | <HarisK> Hi :) |
| | 87 | <geojason> We can probably set up some kind of automated monitoring that restarts the services if they're dead... |
| | 88 | <HarisK> ok I am in |
| | 89 | <rbray> Yes we can. OK Tom and I will have Trevor get in touch with you directly. He will be setting this up. |
| | 90 | <rbray> At this point, I suggest we tackle this for Beta 2. |
| | 91 | <HarisK> ok |
| | 92 | <geojason> What kind of access are we going to allow? |
| | 93 | <rbray> FTP to upload data and php code. |
| | 94 | <rbray> Studio access for authoring. |
| | 95 | <rbray> They can basically use it like a hosted MG server. |
| | 96 | <geojason> The PHP code thing scares the shit out of me... |
| | 97 | <geojason> Good way to own the server. |
| | 98 | <rbray> But only for a limited tme, and no up time guarantees. |
| | 99 | <rbray> Yea |
| | 100 | <rbray> We could pull that part. |
| | 101 | <rbray> Up to you, Trevor, and Haris. |
| | 102 | <geojason> What's the alternative... only giving that level of access to "trusted" users? |
| | 103 | <geojason> Setting up new sites for users (not really interested in that...) |
| | 104 | <rbray> Well that is all we'll be giving. They will have to ask to use it and we will grant them access user by user. |
| | 105 | <rbray> We cannot open it to the world. That would be asking for trouble. |
| | 106 | <bdechant> yup - trusted users only :) |
| | 107 | <geojason> works for me... though it will be a lower level of "trust" than I usually apply for server access :) |
| | 108 | <rbray> Yes. It is really just a testbed. We do not want to get carried away or it will become a management nightmare. |
| | 109 | <rbray> I personally think it will be really cool. I do not know of another open geospatial project that does this. |
| | 110 | <rbray> OK next topic |
| | 111 | <rbray> Anyone object to enabling SVN post commit hooks? |
| | 112 | <tomf1> Not me |
| | 113 | <bdechant> nope |
| | 114 | <rbray> They allow for putting in something like fixed: #123 |
| | 115 | <mapguidetrac> Ticket #123: Cannot find overload for MgMappingService::GeneratePlot(), http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/ticket/123 |
| | 116 | <rbray> And that bug is automatically marked as fixed. |
| | 117 | <tomf1> I would also like to get it enforced that all submissions much be associated with a ticket |
| | 118 | <rbray> That would requrie the pre-commit hook. |
| | 119 | <geojason> As long as people stop putting things like RFC #23 :) |
| | 120 | <mapguidetrac> Ticket #23: Add icon on toolbar to show that map is reloading, http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/ticket/23 |
| | 121 | <geojason> Will it add comments to the ticket as the submissions are made? |
| | 122 | -->| wekeltr (n=chatzill@adeskout.autodesk.com) has joined #MapGuide |
| | 123 | <rbray> Yes. |
| | 124 | <geojason> That's useful. |
| | 125 | <rbray> Yea the comments from the submission get logged in trac. |
| | 126 | <rbray> It's just another level of integration. |
| | 127 | <geojason> Yes, I've found a few times where I wanted to look at what was fixed, and had to root through. |
| | 128 | <rbray> What do folks think about pre-commit hook. Requirenig a ticket to submit? |
| | 129 | <bdechant> Not sure I like that as some times the commit might be to fix a simple typo or source comment |
| | 130 | <tomf1> If we don't geojason is still going to have to "root through" |
| | 131 | <rbray> You can always refer to the original ticket. |
| | 132 | <bdechant> Lots of times there is no root ticket to reference |
| | 133 | <rbray> in the subsequent fixing submission. |
| | 134 | <rbray> Then there should have been. |
| | 135 | <bdechant> I can see a "catch all" ticket being created and commiters using that |
| | 136 | <rbray> Yuch |
| | 137 | <geojason> Those would get pretty big... |
| | 138 | <rbray> That would be bad |
| | 139 | <tomf1> I don't think that will be bad |
| | 140 | <tomf1> if the ticket says "typo and code comment updates" |
| | 141 | <geojason> One per release? |
| | 142 | <tomf1> It would be bad if the ticket summary was "stuff" |
| | 143 | <bdechant> or "Tab fixes" :) |
| | 144 | <geojason> heh |
| | 145 | <rbray> right, my concern is the general catchall. Hey ma, look I just submitted 2000 lines of code under tab fixes. |
| | 146 | <rbray> And its all new |
| | 147 | <rbray> Then we are wasting our tme |
| | 148 | <bdechant> hehe - I don't want to see that either |
| | 149 | <rbray> I personally support the idea, but it has to be properly used. |
| | 150 | <tomf1> I think we need the pre commit hook to make sure that submission/ticket associations are good, otherwise it's very easy to forget to reference the ticket in a submission |
| | 151 | <geojason> Wow, this is a cool bug: http://www.nabble.com/Problem-in-the-GenerateFilter%28%29-method-of-the-MgSelection-class-tf4937455.html#a14132755 |
| | 152 | =-= wekeltr is now known as trevorw |
| | 153 | <rbray> Nice one. Even gave code to re-produce. |
| | 154 | <rbray> So let's vote here. |
| | 155 | <rbray> First Motion: Enable Post Commit Hooks |
| | 156 | <rbray> I am +1 |
| | 157 | <geojason> +1 |
| | 158 | <HarisK> +1 |
| | 159 | <tomf1> +1Any other dissenters to the |
| | 160 | <Andy_Morsell> +1 |
| | 161 | <tomf1> oops, half typed message |
| | 162 | <bdechant> +1 |
| | 163 | <tomf1> ignore it please |
| | 164 | <geojason> dissenters will be shot :) |
| | 165 | <rbray> Good enough for me, passed. |
| | 166 | <rbray> Second Motion: Enable Pre-Commit Hooks implying all submissions require a ticket. |
| | 167 | <tomf1> 1 |
| | 168 | <tomf1> +1 |
| | 169 | <rbray> I am also +1, but Tom will need to document some process :) |
| | 170 | <geojason> +1 |
| | 171 | <bdechant> +1 (as long as we have a process) |
| | 172 | <HarisK> +1 |
| | 173 | <tomf1> Whatever we used when we were with collabnet was fine |
| | 174 | <tomf1> Where's the documentation for that? |
| | 175 | <rbray> Yes that is one that that worked well in the collabnet environment. |
| | 176 | <tomf1> Saves me from having to write it again :-) |
| | 177 | <rbray> There was none. |
| | 178 | <geojason> lol |
| | 179 | <rbray> OK. That is also good enough for me. |
| | 180 | <rbray> passed |
| | 181 | <rbray> I will send out the meeting minutes and as long as our absent member does not complain I'll ask SAC to enable them. |
| | 182 | <rbray> Any other business for today. |
| | 183 | <rbray> Apparently the website is a bit of a mess, but Jason is working on it. |
| | 184 | <rbray> :) |
| | 185 | <geojason> I'm just pushing... don't hav eserver access. |
| | 186 | <geojason> Hey, bob, you should be in there fixing it :) |
| | 187 | <rbray> Yea, well....I am a little pre-occupied today. I can do it this evening though. |
| | 188 | <tomf1> I found a broken link just a second ago for the official PSC page |
| | 189 | <tomf1> do we still have one, the one that was pointed to was http://mapguide.osgeo.org/psc.html |
| | 190 | <rbray> Send me stuff you see broken and I will try to fix. |
| | 191 | <geojason> All of the old URLs, especially if hardcoded, will break for now. |
| | 192 | <tomf1> ...from out wiki page http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_Open_Source |
| | 193 | <rbray> I know about those |
| | 194 | <geojason> Don't "fix" to point to ?q= pages... |
| | 195 | <rbray> No I wont |
| | 196 | <rbray> Any other business? |
| | 197 | <geojason> Updating the roadmap? |
| | 198 | <geojason> A few folks have asked. |
| | 199 | <geojason> And the one in Trac is out of date. |
| | 200 | <rbray> Tom and I can take a stab at that, and then ask the PSC for input. Does that seem like a reasonable approach. |
| | 201 | <rbray> We'll do it by updating Trac. |
| | 202 | <trevorw> Hi everyone, Tom asked me to join but I didn't have an IRC client installed. Haris, should I contact you at your sl-king email address? |
| | 203 | <HarisK> yes, please |
| | 204 | <geojason> Works for me rbray |
| | 205 | <rbray> OK, Tom let's see if we can find an hour for that tomorrow. |
| | 206 | |<-- CIA-17 has left irc.freenode.net (Client Quit) |
| | 207 | <HarisK> for this support do I need to be the one, or it can also be Simon from my company ? |
| | 208 | <trevorw> Ok. Thanks. Jason, should I use your nanaimo address? |
| | 209 | <rbray> Other agenda items or concerns? |
| | 210 | <rbray> Simon is fine. |
| | 211 | <geojason> Sure... |
| | 212 | <rbray> Just give his e-mail to Trevor. |
| | 213 | <HarisK> yes |
| | 214 | <geojason> Though after-hours probably better to use my home address: jason at jasonbirch.com |
| | 215 | <rbray> Asking again since we were side-tracked - Other agenda items or concerns? |
| | 216 | <geojason> The list of tickets is pretty long... |
| | 217 | <geojason> And assignment in Trac doesn't seem to be getting used much. |
| | 218 | <geojason> Is your internal system primary? |
| | 219 | <rbray> Yes. One of those things we are having a hard time reconciling. |
| | 220 | <rbray> Our internal system is all conected to product support and such. |
| | 221 | <geojason> Almost need some kind of gateway... but there would be a lot of risk there. |
| | 222 | <rbray> Yes and they are so completely incompatible it is not funny. |
| | 223 | <rbray> Tons of work to try and link |
| | 224 | <geojason> If I understood the internals better (ie, was a developer) I wouldn't mind managing the public tickets |
| | 225 | <geojason> But as it stands I end up way out of my depth real fast. |
| | 226 | <rbray> Tom and I will add this our list for tomorrow. Not sure how to resolve this just yet, but we basically need a bug manager. |
| | 227 | <tomf1> What are we looking for with this? |
| | 228 | <rbray> And of course both of us are swamped. |
| | 229 | <rbray> Someone to watch trac, assign defects, make sure the target fix version is set, etc. |
| | 230 | <rbray> Oh, and don't forget they first need to go back through and cleanup the tickets we have. |
| | 231 | <geojason> I have a feeling that we have a number of bugs that have either been fixed in 2.0, or are impossible to reproduce without more detail and should be closed. |
| | 232 | <geojason> Hard to deal with though. |
| | 233 | <rbray> Yea, it is a massive time sync. |
| | 234 | <rbray> I'll table that as another action for Tom and I to think about. |
| | 235 | <rbray> anything else? We are out of time. |
| | 236 | <tomf1> yes, I've asked for more details in some tickets, but there have not been updates, so I'll close those now |
| | 237 | <tomf1> ...a few months to provide more details should be enough I would think |
| | 238 | <rbray> Yea |
| | 239 | <rbray> OK, lets adjourn. Thanks everyone. |
| | 240 | <geojason> Bye! |
| | 241 | <bdechant> bye |
| | 242 | <HarisK> bye |
