[Gvsig_english] gvSIG 1.9.1

Mon Mar 29 06:36:15 CEST 2010

Ben,

I am not a developer or aware of the logistics (or the politics)
involved but your suggestion sounds infinity sensible.

Cheers Simon

        Simon Cropper
        Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd
        P.O. Box 160 Sunshine VIC 3020
        P: 03 9311 5822. M: 041 830 3437.
        E: scropper at botanicusaustralia.com.au
        W: http://www.botanicusaustralia.com.au

On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 18:58 +0000, Benjamin Ducke wrote:

> Dear devs
> 
> OK, here is a suggestion for gvSIG 1.9.1.
> It may sound radical, but it could be a good
> solution for everyone involved. You have all
> Sunday to think about it ;-)
> 
> So here it goes:
> 
>   We just take the current gvSIG OADE 2010 sources,
>   fix the remaining 2 or 3 critical bugs and release
>   that as gvSIG 1.9.1!
> 
> Here are the reasons why I think this would make
> sense:
> 
> 1. The "branching problem" is immediately solved.
> We can all work on the same code base towards
> 1.9.2, 1.9.3 etc. as needed, until a fully functional
> gvSIG 2.0 is out.
> 
> 2. Because this means a production use ready and maintained
> (by me alone if I have to) version of 1.9.x would be
> available, this would immediately take pressure off
> the 2.0 development.
> 
> 3. At the time of writing, the number of modifications
> I have made to the 1.9 sources is probably greater than
> the number of modifications from other devs, so it would
> be efficient: I only need to merge a few recent SVN
> changes from your side, and the new SVN code is ready.
> 
> 4. GvSIG OADE 2010 Beta 2 is already out and you can
> test it to convince yourselves that the changes are
> working OK.
> 
> 5. OA could continue releasing an "OA branded" version
> geared towards our archaeological users. This would
> include things such as archaeological sample data and
> support for Mac OS X (which is common among archaeologists).
> We would also keep providing binaries with our customized
> installer. You could just add links from the main gvSIG
> download page to these installers.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Luis W. Sevilla" <lsevilla at sigrid.es>
> To: "Users and Developers mailing list" <gvsig_internacional at listserv.gva.es>
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:29:01 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern / Rome / Stockholm / Vienna
> Subject: Re: [Gvsig_english] gvSIG 1.9.1
> 
> Hi,
> Benjamin Ducke wrote:
> > ----- "Luis W. Sevilla" <lsevilla at sigrid.es> schrieb
> >> Hi Simon,
> >> Simon Cropper wrote:
> >>     
> > [SNIP]
> >   
> >>> My frustration stems from the desire to contribute more to the
> >>> community effort but finding it's is a bit like shooting at a moving
> >>> target. It is very difficult to establish how to address development
> >>> of documentation when the current version is considered 'dead' and
> >>>       
> >> to
> >>     
> >>> be replaced sometime in the immediate future..
> >>>       
> >>     IMHO this consideration of 'dead development' was a big mistake.
> >> I'm
> >> unsure about the origin, bu I never agreed with this  qualification.
> >> v1.9 will not have development support ... when 2.0 will be stable,
> >> but
> >> by now (and probably by almost all this year) 1.9 it's our stable
> >> version, the one that the user have, and the one the developers have
> >> to
> >> do his job. 1.9 may not be the perfection, but as is our present
> >> product
> >> NEEDS support.
> >>
> >>     So, this worries about lack of support probably were a
> >> misunderstand, as next 1.9.1 release will show.
> >>     
> >
> > Luis,
> >
> > I completely agree with your assessment of the importance of
> > the 1.9 codebase. Like Simon, the "dead code" status of 1.9
> > was the main source of my irritations and frustrations.
> >
> > If 1.9 is going to stay alive and will be actively maintained
> > until 2.0, then I will also add some extra
> > working days and feed all my recent bug fixes (done for gvSIG
> > OADE Beta 1 and 2) directly into SVN. That way, we can make
> > sure that there are no differences between the gvSIG "branches"
> > in regard to stability.
> >   
> I don't think this is too much realistic. I'll try to explain my point:
> 2.0 and stability. Now we have a transition status, in witch we have a 
> huge restructuring and rewriting of former code in one development 
> branch (2.0), that now a days it's not stable enough to be useful for 
> end users, and that does not have a time target (as far as I know). 
> It'll need to be declared at least alpha status, and thus some of the 
> main changes declared as almost finished to enter in a path of 
> stabilization. Meanwhile all the efforts of stabilization in 2.0 will be 
> almost useless.
> 1.9 and 'active maintenance'. As I wrote this is a transition status. 
> Main development effort is on 2.0 branch, so 1.9 will receive minor bug 
> fixes (due to a lack of manpower). The more resources devoted to 
> maintain 1.9, the later 2.0 will be release. In this kind of situation, 
> you need to balance interest and of course not to arrive at maximum 
> targets in any of both areas.
> 'official' and OADE distribution differences. I think this will continue 
> at  least until main project will develop the capability of releasing as 
> frequently as OADE needs. I don't see OADE as a branch, cause main 
> changes (JRE 1.6 support, ie) were already in 1.9 code. All changes 
> you're doing will be incorporated to next gvSIG 'official' release, an 
> this different paces mean (at least for me) differences in stability 
> (and at some point, in features)
> > But we would have to coordinate this with each other. I have
> > a very tight working schedule for the next weeks, so would there
> > must be enough time allowed for me to merge all my modifications
> > and to fix the last remaining 2 or 3 bugs on my list.
> >   
> It should be nice. It's an effort your organization and official gvSIG 
> driving forces need to make. Requirements are always the problem, and 
> rarely a lack of interest.
> 
> By the way, I have not say it before, but I'm quite admired about the 
> bunch to our project that your 'alternative distribution' effort means. 
> Competence it's always a source of improvement motivation, and this 
> could mean only good new both for end user and developer community. 
> Thanks for being there, thanks for pushing hard, and bravo! for the work 
> that you have done. Keep pushing.
> > Cheers,
> >   
> Greetings
>     Luis
> > Ben
> >
> >
> > ------
> > Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open Document Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info for more information.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gvsig_internacional mailing list
> > Gvsig_internacional at listserv.gva.es
> > http://listserv.gva.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gvsig_internacional
> >
> > --
> > This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.gva.es/pipermail/gvsig_internacional/attachments/20100329/07aef5ea/attachment.htm 