19:32 camerons: Hello everyone, who is currently with us?
19:32 mattdiez: Matt Diez = Present and Accounted For
19:32 Cappelaere: PAt here
19:32 madair: hello
19:33 camerons: Steven said he might be late, but to start without him.
19:33 camerons: Schulyer, are you awake? If so anything in this meeting that you are interested in?
19:35 camerons: Anyone want to add anything to the agenda emailed out?
19:35 madair: a date for 1.0 release, not just rc2
19:35 camerons: I'd like to discuss whether we include proj updates in 1.0.
19:36 mattdiez: We referring to 1.0 final? Or rc2?
19:36 camerons: rc2
19:36 mattdiez: Do we have any tests written for projections?
19:36 madair: I'd like a date for 1.0 final too
19:36 camerons: ok
19:37 linda: linda here
19:37 camerons: Any computer upgrades planned Linda?
19:37 linda: sorry about last week 
19:38 camerons: 
19:38 camerons: Lets start with a SVN update from matthew:
19:38 camerons: topic 1= svn
19:38 mattdiez: Sure.
19:39 mattdiez: It's going to be extremely easy to do the branching.
19:39 camerons: ok
19:39 mattdiez: To be frank, using the SVN-eclipse functionality makes the entire thing a ten minute process.
19:39 linda:
19:39 Schuyler: hello folks
19:39 madair: can you do the branch from the second /mapbuilder subdir? it might help the long filename issue
19:39 camerons: Hi Schuyler.
19:40 mattdiez: Mike: I'll look into that. I'll give it a look this weekend.
19:40 camerons: Mike, I suggest not. A branch should include the tests associated with that branch.
19:41 mattdiez: So, the only real problem I anticipate from branching is the human "overhead" involved in tracking and assigning and merging bugs in multiple branches
19:41 madair: no I'm saying take the branch from the second /mapbuilder/mapbuilder directory
19:41 camerons: Schuyler, anything in this meeting that you are especially interested in?
19:41 madair: or better yet, we get rid of the duplicate /mapbuilder
19:42 camerons: Mike, yes I like that idea.
19:42 mattdiez: Mike, that seems reasonable.
19:42 linda: I used the cvs tool to import into SVN
19:42 Schuyler: camerons: thanks for asking. yes, it turns out that I will be attending the meeting in Chicago tomorrow.
19:42 linda: when I asked the codehaus folks they said that it was normal to help with branching ...
19:42 Schuyler: so I just wanted to be present for any last minute discussion about that that I could convey to Chris or the meeting itself.
19:42 linda: but we have the branching below
19:43 camerons: ok Schuler, that would be great.
19:44 mattdiez: So, my tasklist: 1) Try to resolve the long filename issue 2) Remove 2nd Mapbuilder Dir in next branching test
19:44 mattdiez: My desires: Firm(er) dates on the rc2 and final branches/releases.
19:44 camerons: A discussion I had mid week with Patrice is "When do we strike the 1.0 branch"?
19:44 mattdiez: (or firm(er) goals)
19:45 madair: I would suggest rc2 anytime
19:45 camerons: I notice that Matt has already created a branches/1.0. Should we go with that, or should we wait until we freeze rc2 updates and strike a branches/1.0 at that point?
19:45 camerons: I don't mind either way.
19:45 madair: once the IE mappane problem is fixed (testing right now)
19:46 mattdiez: Cameron: That branch creation was a test (and is easily undone )- we should wait until we're happy w/ rc2, and then branch.
19:46 mattdiez: Mike: what bug # is IE mappane?
19:47 madair: not sure it's in there yet, I'll add one if not
19:47 camerons: Mike, Patrice, can you 2 please work this out as I think you are the ones that feel most pasionately about it.
19:47 mattdiez: Mike, Patrice: And when you've decided, send me my marching orders.
19:47 madair: I'll take the IE bug fix
19:48 camerons: (Mike/Patrice, I want you to work out what date you strike the 1.0 baseline)
19:48 Cappelaere: next week ?
19:49 madair: or sooner
19:49 linda: you want it today
19:49 camerons: This means deleting the branches/1.0 then recreating it when Mike gives the OK. You fine with that Pat?
19:51 Cappelaere: sure
19:51 mattdiez: Mike: Let's do it when you've got IE mappane done. Send me an email.
19:51 madair: the patch sent in by Stefano Menegon (Radim's colleague looks like it fixes the problem
19:51 camerons: Anything else to discus on SVN?
19:51 madair: ok, I'll test some more and let you know later today
19:52 mattdiez: Excellent.
19:52 madair: so RC2 today (hopefully), then give it a week for bug reports before 1.0 final? depending on what is reported
19:53 camerons: There is still one bug: 63 outstanding on RC1. This is something I hope to fix, but I probably wont have time to look at it till your Sunday.
19:54 linda: patrice and I had talked earlier about trying to move the fitness harness outside of mapbuilder and keeping just the tests inside each release
19:54 camerons: Should have a fix by Monday/Tuesday.
19:54 mattdiez: Cameron: We can wait until then to build/branch.
19:54 mattdiez: I know mike's ready to get moving on it.
19:55 madair: James filed MAP-63 as a fix for rc2, I think we should move that to 1.1
19:55 mattdiez: Can somebody go ahead and move that one?
19:55 madair: I think the other 2 1.0 fixes can be moved to 1.1, as discussed on the list
19:56 camerons: Mike, I'm guessing this will be a 1 line fix once I work out what is happening.
19:57 madair: ok, if it does get fixed for 1.0 then you can change it back
19:57 camerons: How about you give me 24 hours to look into 63. If I can't work it out, then strike a 1.0 baseline tomorrow.
19:57 madair: k
19:57 mattdiez: k
19:58 Cappelaere: k
19:58 camerons: Matt, looks like you can start building rc2 in 24 hours, how long do you think it will take to build the release?
19:59 madair: BTW, I've gone through all the issues and tagged the ones I plan to fix (or someone should fix) as 1.1
19:59 madair: I didn't touch the feature eidting/handling ones because I'm not that familiar with that part of the code
19:59 camerons: Allow a day or 2 for us to review your first cut. And then allow time to build it again after our review.
19:59 madair: so if someone can go through those and edit them it would be good
20:01 camerons: Mike, I suggest we review what goes into 1.1 at the next meeting. Think of it as the start of our Sprint cycle (according to the SCRUM process).
20:01 mattdiez: Cameron: It will be build for Sunday @ 1900 CST (America/Chicago) -*: Monday @ 1200 (Australia/Sydney)
20:01 stvn: hi
20:02 camerons: Hi Steven.
20:03 camerons: Summary: we will start building 1.0rc2 from tomorrow.
20:03 camerons: Do we want to wait a couple of days before we release rc2 so that we can clean up web pages?
20:04 mattdiez: Can I get some storage space to upload the built release to?
20:04 madair: I would target the completed web pages for 1.0 final
20:05 stvn: agree
20:05 mattdiez: agree
20:05 camerons: matt, you can put it on the Sourceforge web site.
20:05 camerons: Put it in a tmp directory there. I assume you have a login?
20:05 mattdiez: Yep...
20:06 mattdiez: I can't remember if I can edit the mapbuilder.sf.net web page.
20:06 mattdiez: I don't believe I cna.
20:06 mattdiez: can.
20:06 camerons: So to give us a couple of days for a review, then rebuild, I suggest we release within the week, if not sooner. That ok?
20:07 camerons: Matt, might be a permission thing. I'll sort this out with you offline.
20:07 mattdiez: Noted.
20:08 mattdiez: So, in 24 hours you'll see if you can solve 63. 24 hours after that, i'll cut a sample release for testing + branch. If happy with it: we release 72 hours after that?
20:08 camerons: Matt, you might want to add me to your Instant Messaging list - details at http://cameron.shorter.net .
20:09 camerons: Matt, give me 28 hours to fix bugs, then the rest sounds good.
20:10 camerons: Anything else to discuss on RC2?
20:10 mattdiez: Good over here.
20:10 madair: not from me
20:10 camerons: Schuyler - you still with us?
20:10 stvn: fine by me
20:12 camerons: Next topic 1.1:
20:12 camerons: I don't think we need to go into details now (save that for next week).
20:13 camerons: But we can work out a date now if you like.
20:13 madair: sure, excpet for perhaps a date?
20:13 camerons: Pat suggested March. Does that suit?
20:14 stvn: what sould 1.1 do?
20:15 Schuyler: hello
20:15 Schuyler: btw, I have to leave in about 20 mins
20:15 madair: robust feature handling, the MapPane factory refactoring
20:15 camerons: Ah, let's switch topic to the Geospatial foundation.
20:15 madair: k
20:16 camerons: So that Schuler can hear and take our ideas to the meeting.
20:16 stvn: k
20:16 Schuyler: I'm sure you've already articulated most of your ideas to Chris
20:16 camerons: Schuyler, who will you be representing at the meeting?
20:16 Schuyler: I just wanted to see if there were any further elaborations
20:17 camerons: I suggest we answer the questions put out on the list yesturday.
20:17 Schuyler: camerons: OpenLayers, specifically, but I'm going largely as a Free Software community advocate
20:17 Schuyler: since OpenLayers doesn't itself have much of a community yet.
20:17 camerons: What would prevent Mapbuilder from joining the foundation?
20:18 madair: copyright assignment issue
20:18 stvn: yep
20:18 camerons: I think it would make it hard for us if we needed to give our source code to the Foundation, and allow them to dual license it for profit.
20:20 Schuyler: the currentte asdf~.
20:20 Schuyler: oops, sorry.
20:20 Schuyler: the current license is LGPL?
20:20 camerons: Schuyler, I've just forward our open email to Chris/Foundation.
20:20 camerons: Schuyler, yes.
20:21 camerons: We are still young enough to be able to contact all contributors and possibly get them to re-assign copywrite.
20:21 camerons: But I don't think we would like that.
20:22 camerons: Am I right in saying that we would like to have the Foundation recieve funds on our behalf?
20:23 madair: on the other hand one of the main reasons to join is to reduce legal risk of personal liability
20:23 madair: yes
20:23 camerons: And if we recieve funds - we would like OUR project management committee to negotiate terms and what it is spent on with the sponsor rather than the Foundation.
20:23 stvn: the idea was that it would be possible to dual copyright it, right?
20:24 madair: yes
20:24 camerons: Steven, right.
20:24 stvn: that'll be fine by me
20:24 Schuyler: understood. is it a problem if the Foundation gets a small cut, also, for their overhead
20:24 Schuyler: ?
20:25 Schuyler: also [[ What top three things that
20:25 madair: as lonas it's reasonable
20:25 Schuyler: would stop you from joining the foundation? ]]
20:25 camerons: Schuler, no. Handling fees would be expected.
20:25 stvn: if they find funds, they can keep a cut, as long as it is a reasonable one
20:25 Schuyler: that's the main question I'm interested in
20:25 Schuyler: I think the Foundation needs to be as inclusive as possible
20:26 camerons: My issue is that we want to retain control over who we hire to do the work, who is in control of prioritising which features get implemented next.
20:26 madair: yes techincal direction for each project should remain in the project PMC
20:27 camerons: If the foundation finds the funding, then I see the foundation as the sponsor, and the foundation can then have control over where the money is spent.
20:27 madair: the foundatoin could bring forward requirements, but it's up to the projects to deicde about implementing
20:27 camerons: I'm refering mainly to sponsors we find ourselves.
20:29 camerons: These 2 issues might cause us to reconsider joining.
20:29 stvn: the main reason for me not to join if the foundation turns into a large slow bureaucratic organisation
20:29 camerons: 1. Assigning copywrite
20:29 camerons: 2. Control
20:29 stvn: yep
20:30 camerons: Any other reasons for not joining?
20:31 Schuyler: 3. Not Open Source
20:31 stvn: heh
20:31 camerons: yes, probably.
20:31 Schuyler: ok, I think the message is very clear.
20:31 Schuyler: sourcing funding does not buy the Foundation control over member projects.
20:31 Schuyler: I think that's a good message.
20:32 camerons: yes.
20:32 camerons: So, what do we want to gain from the Foundation?
20:32 camerons: 1. Publicity due to association.
20:33 stvn: 2. legal support
20:33 camerons: 3. Accepting funding as a non-profit on our behalf.
20:33 madair: we don't need project space (SVN, wiki, issue tracking,...)
20:33 Schuyler: perhaps, a forum for integrating with other projects.
20:34 Schuyler: maybe not even that – you guys are doing just fine working with GeoServer
20:34 stvn: in general i hope the foundation will stand its ground against the big gis boys
20:34 camerons: Yes, I think integration with other projections will be a bonus. Although I think some of that will happen even without the Foundation.
20:35 camerons: Yes, Steven, I'd like to see the foundation lobbying on behalf of all the Free GIS projects.
20:36 madair: 4. being included in education materials
20:36 Schuyler: one thing that the Apache Foundation did early on was serve as a way for corporate clients to find consultants
20:36 Schuyler: (4) might be a subset of (1)
20:37 camerons: Schuyler, this would be good. I see this as a form of selling on our behalf.
20:38 camerons: Which would also be a bonus.
20:39 madair: there would be many benefits overall from joining
20:40 camerons: Assuming our concerns about Control and Licencing are addressed, we would be very keen to join.
20:40 camerons: I noticed from Gary's email that they were looking for 3 to 5 projects to start. I'd hope that Mapbuilder is one of those projects.
20:41 Cappelaere: I doubt it
20:41 Cappelaere: there seem to be many others
20:41 Cappelaere: and we are not there
20:42 camerons: How do people feel about having a Foundation member assigned to our PMC?
20:42 Cappelaere: not sure
20:42 camerons: I'd prefer our PMC members to be elected by our PMC.
20:43 Schuyler: yeah
20:43 Schuyler: that seems like the wrong side of the control question
20:43 madair: I tend to agree with Cameron
20:43 Schuyler: if the Foundation assigns a liason great
20:43 Schuyler: but not a decision maker
20:43 stvn: yep
20:43 madair: makes sense
20:43 camerons: Ie, I'd prefer one of our current PMC members to be assigned to the Foundation guiding group rather than the other way around.
20:45 camerons: I'd be happy with a "non-voting" member to be assigned to the project who has a role of being a guide to the project and reporting back to the foundation.
20:46 Cappelaere: agree
20:46 Schuyler: ok I'm about to be late for my flight I'll check my IRC scroll back when I get there
20:46 Schuyler: talk to you all later
20:46 stvn: k
20:47 Cappelaere: cya
20:47 stvn: good luck with the meeting
20:47 camerons: Is there anything else we need to say to the Foundation?
20:47 madair: bye
20:47 camerons: ok, thanks for taking this on Schuyler.
20:48 camerons: Anything else on this topic?
20:48 madair: not from me
20:48 stvn: nope
20:49 camerons: We were talking about 1.0
20:49 camerons: Sorry, 1.1
20:50 camerons: Pat, when do you want to release 1.1?
20:50 Cappelaere: March 1
20:50 Cappelaere: or earlier
20:50 camerons: March 1 we release 1.1rc1?
20:51 camerons: Ie, should we create a branch at 1.1 or keep working on the trunk?
20:51 Cappelaere: I just will not have SVG on FF just yet but that's ok I think
20:51 Cappelaere: trunk 1+
20:51 stvn: the problem is still the xhtml extension?
20:51 Cappelaere: yeap
20:52 stvn: hm
20:52 Cappelaere: I am sure there is a solutuin though
20:52 mattdiez: Why the push to have 1.1 done so soon?
20:52 camerons: ok, so March 1 for 1.1rc1, then we can keep developing on the trunk to produce 1.1rc2 and the like.
20:52 Cappelaere: yeap
20:53 Cappelaere: we hav eplenty of stuff to do and we can't wait
20:53 Cappelaere: we need to show incremental progress
20:53 Cappelaere: at least my program needs to
20:54 mattdiez: okay.
20:54 camerons: So what you want is a series on alpha releases to show progress?
20:54 stvn: there's a lot waiting in the queue right now
20:54 camerons: Maybe we should release: 1.1alpha 1.2alpha 1.3rc1, 1.3rc2, 1.3 (or similar)
20:54 stvn: , not sure we can get it out in a month, but a quick release to empty the queue would be nice
20:55 Cappelaere: we can try
20:55 madair: 1.0 is already obsolete
20:55 stvn: heh
20:55 Cappelaere: yes
20:55 stvn: 1.0 is a lot bigger than other releases: we've also done website,svn,docs
20:55 camerons: Ie, we strike a stable release at 1.3 orsimilar
20:56 stvn: make it 1.5 it's a known version number
20:56 camerons: ok
20:57 camerons: I have no problem with a fast release cycle for alpha releases, and a slower cycle for stable releases.
20:57 stvn: sounds fine
20:58 camerons: Anything else to discuss on 1.1?
20:59 camerons: Next topic: Should projection updates go into 1.0?
20:59 mattdiez: good here
20:59 mattdiez: May I bring up an extraneous point on projections?
20:59 camerons: sure.
21:00 mattdiez: Internal representations of a lot of projections may be in, say meters (northing/easting like UTM)
21:00 mattdiez: But, ideally, I'd like to see the tracker widget (i forget the name), be able to display and convert into decimal degrees.
21:00 mattdiez: How doable does this seem?
21:01 madair: it can do that (provided the algorithm is implemented for that projection)
21:01 stvn: it already does that, right?
21:01 madair: LCC maps are rtacked in degrees by default
21:02 stvn: I say that the projections which do not require new algorythms to be included in 1.0
21:02 mattdiez: Soooo - if I implement UTM into Proj.js, no extra code will be necessary for the tracker? It'll automatically display DecDeg?
21:02 stvn: the dutch one is really weird stereographic, so I like to test it thoroughly and put it in 1.1
21:02 camerons: Do we want to hold the RC2 build up to give Richard time to put updates into SVN?
21:03 madair: Agree. but new EPSG codes for already supported projections are low risk
21:03 madair: as long as they get into 1.0 final, it should be ok
21:04 camerons: So give Richard 24 hours to get the EPSG codes into 1.0rc2 if he wants to. If he doesn't make it, then they don't get in?
21:04 madair: matt: CursorTrack <showXY>true/false<showXY*: false means show lat/lon
21:04 mattdiez: mike: thanks.
21:05 Cappelaere: I think it means showXY yes/no
21:05 Cappelaere: I think there are many other shows no
21:05 Cappelaere: now
21:05 Cappelaere: they can be cumulative
21:05 Cappelaere: showXY, showLatLon, showDec
21:06 Cappelaere: showMGRS
21:06 Cappelaere: ...
21:06 madair: ah yes, look at the Demis config
21:07 camerons: Anything else on projections?
21:07 mattdiez: thanks .I'll look into it.
21:08 camerons: Next topic: Release date for 1.0
21:08 camerons: I don't expect there to be many fixes for rc2.
21:09 stvn: there are not many bugs open for rc2
21:10 camerons: I suggest we leave 2 weeks for the public to test rc2, then a week or 2 to fix any bugs they find. Which means we release 1.0 about the same time as 1.1alpha.
21:10 stvn: (prolly because they are not assigned to it though)
21:12 camerons: 1.0 might just be a re-badging of rc2.
21:12 stvn: k
21:12 madair: I see the RCs as just a step towards the 1.x final no? I've been assigning the fix version to 1.0, but "affects version" to the RC and trunk
21:13 stvn: madair: yeah
21:14 camerons: After we release RC2, I'd like to stop supporting the 1.0 branch unless we get a showstopper bug in which case we go back and fix it on the branch.
21:14 madair: sure
21:15 camerons: So releasing 1.0 should just be a formality.
21:15 camerons: To make us look like a mature project.
21:15 camerons: Anything else on 1.0?
21:16 camerons: Anything else to discuss (I need to go in a minute).
21:16 stvn: we need to get the site in order
21:16 stvn: but that doesn't need to be discussed here right now
21:17 camerons: Right, the SF site or Codehaus?
21:17 stvn: I'll catch up with peters work and do my bit and we can discuss progress next meeting
21:17 stvn: both
21:17 stvn: if we depricate sf, we need to make that clear on the sf site
21:18 camerons: It would be good to get a redirect from the SF site to Codehaus.
21:18 stvn: yep
21:18 camerons: That should take much to do?
21:19 stvn: eh?
21:19 camerons: Do you think the codehaus site is ready to be the master site?
21:19 stvn: i've to crosscheck
21:19 stvn: most of it is over I think
21:20 camerons: If you bring down the SF site, I suggest you move the pages to mapbuidler.sf.net/bak (or similar)
21:20 camerons: So we can refer back to it if we forgot something.
21:20 stvn: yep
21:20 stvn: wasn't planning on deleting anything on sf just yet
21:21 camerons: ok.
21:21 camerons: Anything else to discuss?
21:21 camerons: Steven, are you able to copy the logs to the site?
21:22 stvn: i'll do it sunday
21:22 camerons: ok, thanks everyone for turning up. See you on email.
21:22 linda: k
21:22 madair: thanks, bye
News Operations
Browse Space