Hi,
so, when are we going to release beta2? End of this week?
Beginning of the next one?
jira still has quite a bit of issues scheduled for 2.0-beta2,
would be nice to hear from people if they consider any relevant
enough to be fixed or if we should move the existing issues
that are not marked as "critical/bloker" to RC1?
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-2705:
I thought a while back we said that for 2.0 we would focus on functionality, before usability. Making usability more of a 2.1 focus. Has that changed?
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-1951:
This is just a meta issue. And probably something we can just close.
That leaves us with 2 critical issues left. Scanning through the rest nothing strikes me as a blocker for another beta release. However I would like to get http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-3078 (moving web2 to core) done before we get to the RC stage. I am happy to take that on if you want to reassign that one to me.
Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi,
so, when are we going to release beta2? End of this week?
Beginning of the next one?jira still has quite a bit of issues scheduled for 2.0-beta2,
would be nice to hear from people if they consider any relevant
enough to be fixed or if we should move the existing issues
that are not marked as "critical/bloker" to RC1?Cheers
Andrea
--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-2705:
I thought a while back we said that for 2.0 we would focus on functionality, before usability. Making usability more of a 2.1 focus. Has that changed?
I know. The issue is assigned to you, I did not set it to critical
myself, you did on March 3 ;-), so I wanted to double check before
taking action.
I guess it should be scaled back to "major" priority and moved back
to 2.0.x?
This is just a meta issue. And probably something we can just close.
That leaves us with 2 critical issues left. Scanning through the rest nothing strikes me as a blocker for another beta release. However I would like to get http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-3078 (moving web2 to core) done before we get to the RC stage. I am happy to take that on if you want to reassign that one to me.
Right right, major point for me as well. I think there are two action
items there:
- writing enough docs to claim it is documented. I guess we only have
to document the module architecture and convention, everything Wicket
related can point to the Wicket wiki and/or to a book
- get to 40% test coverage in all module. At the moment
cobertura reports:
core: 41%
wms: 38%
wfs: 69%
wcs: 70%
demo: 57%
app: 44%
The formal limit is not far, probably one test away in wms, thought
raising up a bit the coverage in core would not hurt. I can take it,
should be quick enough.
Docs wise we can decide on a structure and split the work if you
want.
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
Andrea Aime wrote:
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-2705:
I thought a while back we said that for 2.0 we would focus on functionality, before usability. Making usability more of a 2.1 focus. Has that changed?
I know. The issue is assigned to you, I did not set it to critical
myself, you did on March 3 ;-), so I wanted to double check before
taking action.
I guess it should be scaled back to "major" priority and moved back
to 2.0.x?This is just a meta issue. And probably something we can just close.
That leaves us with 2 critical issues left. Scanning through the rest nothing strikes me as a blocker for another beta release. However I would like to get http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-3078 (moving web2 to core) done before we get to the RC stage. I am happy to take that on if you want to reassign that one to me.
Right right, major point for me as well. I think there are two action
items there:
- writing enough docs to claim it is documented. I guess we only have
to document the module architecture and convention, everything Wicket
related can point to the Wicket wiki and/or to a book
- get to 40% test coverage in all module. At the moment
cobertura reports:
core: 41%
wms: 38%
wfs: 69%
wcs: 70%
demo: 57%
app: 44%The formal limit is not far, probably one test away in wms, thought
raising up a bit the coverage in core would not hurt. I can take it,
should be quick enough.Docs wise we can decide on a structure and split the work if you
want.
Works for me, I am actually hacking a bit on the developers guide (porting maven + eclipse quickstart), so I can throw this on the plate if you wish. I would say if we did the following:
* a bit about structure / architecture
* links to some wicket tutorials
* a short tutorial documenting how to write a plug-in, be nice if it build off the hello world service tutorial, and maybe a quick ui to configure the message spit out by the service
If you want to split up the work how about you make sure test coverage is up to snuff, and actually do the move, and i can whip up the docs?
Cheers
Andrea
--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
...
Works for me, I am actually hacking a bit on the developers guide (porting maven + eclipse quickstart), so I can throw this on the plate if you wish. I would say if we did the following:
* a bit about structure / architecture
* links to some wicket tutorials
* a short tutorial documenting how to write a plug-in, be nice if it build off the hello world service tutorial, and maybe a quick ui to configure the message spit out by the service
Would be nice indeed. I guess this would make you also work on
some configuration storage? Anyways, good idea.
If you want to split up the work how about you make sure test coverage is up to snuff, and actually do the move, and i can whip up the docs?
Deal 
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.