Hiho [16:26] Everybody here? Shall we begin or wait til 16:30? [16:27] I am ready me2 alright, let's go Welcome Wiki page here: http://wiki.deegree.org/deegreeWiki/TmcMeeting/TmcMeeting20111206 Anything important missing on the agenda? [16:28] i don't think so Ok ok [16:29] I would suggest to start with the open TMC tasks then Tracker item #6265 Andreas kindly cleaned up the roadmap and Markus/Johannes made some nice cleanup I think we should look through the roadmap and see what *we* think should be included in 3.2 [16:30] Ok. I think the issue can be closed then, right? +1 +1 Shall we discuss the included features in 3.2? 2.1. is a very important task IMHO [16:31] At least shortly Agreed +1 2.1 is important +1 2.2 is more a nice to have and needs funding/volunteers some transformations are currently unusable so 2.1 is in? ok right how shall we deal with this situation [16:32] We propose to include it and see what the PSC says about financing it? yes, +1 Yes, why not. 2.3 is a given, as it's funded by lat/lon [16:33] there might be some projects around the corner already copierrj: yes? 2.4 is a given, as it's funded by lat/lon 2.6 would be nice and may be partly funded by Occam Labs 2.5 is a given, as it's funded [16:34] ok ok the points of 2.7 are partly done, or will be done, we can leave them in [16:35] anybody has any objections against any feature on the list? No, not at all.. I would like to add some stuff for the release... no objections Anything to add? Website makeover Project infrastructure cleanup faster feature reconstruction for relational mapping [16:36] New documentation (manual) copierrj: you think there's a lot of room for improvement? What do you mean by project infrastructure cleanup? I've some ideas to improve reconstruction speed that's interesting [16:37] shall we put that on the list? is it realistic? for 3.2 or backlog? jwilden: Wiki, SCM, Issue Tracker basically Ok, agree [16:38] we can add it to the roadmap and hope it gets some funding +1 +1 +1 [16:39] MarkusSchneider: will you add it? Yes, will do Shall we add all the "project" features as well? I think they have very high importance. +1 ?? we can do that, but it's IMHO not really a 'feature' of 3.2 (just might be good in that time frame) [16:40] To bring the project infrastructure / appeal up to standard... it's more a PSC thing, though yep Then list it as different poijt ? *point if we agree on the importance, we can make a PSC issue out of it [16:41] Yes please. +1 reijer, do you have any feelings about this? [16:42] not really so it's 0? or -1 0 +1 good. Volunteers? Needs to add a ticket for PSC. [16:43] I can do it. +1 Anything else for the feature list for 3.2? [16:44] nope No. no So action items to me and we should be able to close #6265 #6263? We had this already last time. [16:45] Yes, I still haven't recieved the document from Jens Ok. Action item for next time for you? I will get back to you when i have it Yes Great. [16:46] #6253? I can help jwilden with the task I already have some tools at hand for that That would be nice Great. Action items for you two? Or anybody else wants to be involved here? [16:47] So action item for Andreas and me I don't :-) ok #1305? Andreas did a great deal of cleanup. True! [16:48] I would like to close this one. Shall we skim the original PSC item? yep, only /applications is still there And that was the target, wasn't it? well, let's indeed skim the PSC item [16:49] properly resolving the issue would IMHO mean to integrate the current workspaces into /applications Ok. that would require some thinking about versioning etc. [16:50] Shall we separate workspace and non-workspace applications? well, they're sometimes integrated Hmm eg. .jar projects which also produce a workspace Hmm or the old catalogueManager + CSW problem I don't see the big picture yet. [16:51] Me neither How will be build stuff in applications we I'm thinking having workspace or bigger 'application' projects versioned differently can make sense IF we have 'target' versions in some workspace metadata Agreed @ ndrs [16:52] so eg. the utah workspace 1.0 can be used for deegree 3.1 and 3.2 So this is connected to the workspace-registry yep, indeed right Which is also planned for 3.2. So we better postpone the decision? shall we postpone the integration until work on the registry begins? but in a first step we could clean up the mess that there is the inspire node in /applications and also a inspire-workspace +1 +1 [16:53] ok, let's postpone it then what about inspire-ws ? we have deegree3/trunk/deegree-workspaces/deegree-workspace-inspire and /applications/deegree-inspire-node which is bad, since the inspire node is not maintained at all IIRC [16:54] /applications/deegree-inspire-node is not used anymore, ist it? Shall we kill deegree-inspire-node? yes. Also let's have a look what else to remove ok. what do we have? we also have the deegree-xplan-node deegree-inspire-node does have some brand recognision [16:55] hmm the problem is that this was a 3.0 thing, imho xplan-node ist not maintained anymore I think reijer: what do you reckon? [16:56] deegree-inspire-node is sometimes mentioned as a downloadable product in NL and we have it in the wiki... although the wiki needs to be changed anyway [16:57] we could simply call the workspace: deegree-inspire-node (there's also a deegree-workspaces svn:externals link in /applications which I will remove now) this is what it is now... or create a simple war project that included the inspire ws but would it be good to maintain multiple ways to get the same thing? [16:58] I don't think so not really we can still provide a pre-packaged deegree-webservices with integrated inspire-workspace and call it inspireNode Agreed! +1 [16:59] isn't that the exact same? it is to the end user I think this could hinder a clean structure for documentation in 3.2... so: -1 [17:00] Hard to say 0 The question is: What do we have as a download for 3.2 I like the idea of a single artifact pretty much [17:01] the question would arise as to why to we have n workspaces and only 2 .war downloads, why not to it for utah etc. This is what we achieved with 3.1 dit exactly we've actually already decided we don't want that any more but I can understand the branding argument right Again: How about calling it "inspire-node" It's simply a workspace for 3.2 So just make pulbic that deegree-inspire-node is the new deegree-inspire-workspace?! sounds like a good idea [17:02] Yes @ markus And if anybody cares (e.g. IDGis), there's no problem to provide a packaged WAR. +1 we don't use it ourselfs it's just mentioned by others 0 +1 [17:03] +1 And we mention what happened to the former download, okay? +1 Yes should be good enough ok next So we close #1305? [17:04] With a remark on the workspace issue? +1 +1 There are more open issues: http://wald.intevation.org/tracker/?func=browse&group_id=27&atid=303 sounds good Shall we continue or call it a day? And continue next time? [17:05] Continue we could quickly close #1254 Ok Actually, I believe we cannot close any item, right? Or can we? Technically it is really out of date (these things were checked with the OSGeo process) hm, unclear I believe we can close the issues [17:06] but that's just a gut feeling I also believe it's done. Hmm Can we suggest to close it? +1 +1 [17:07] +1 +1 Great. #1255 can also be closed I updated the wiki page also, I don't think rbezema will close the issues himself as the submitter ;-) Hmm +1 Oops [17:08] I meant #1256, sorry I worked on that Can anybody find out how to actually close items for next time? Maybe we have to ask the PSC... [17:09] Seems like it #6264 is also done. I'd suggest we just close them ourselves, and let the people re-open them if needed That seems to be the way the psc does it *If* we can +1 +1 [17:10] +1 Otherwise, you find out what to do? ok :-) great I am sorry, but I got another meeting Anything left? Or we go on next time? we can finish the tracker list next time On the 20th Yes ok [17:11] Great. Thanks everybody! See you next time See you next time ok, see you cu