Mark Wedel wrote:
The mlab maps obviously do not fall into that case - they are clearly
being actively developed, and the person doing so has CVS.
One problem that arises from this is that there really isn't any way
for anyone to integrate the mlab maps - your trying to integrate a
moving target.
The other is that this really just seems to be a way to avoid the
mapguide - I know Mike doesn't want to follow our map directory layout
or some other areas of the mapguide.
[snip]
But then I'm still stuck figuring out what is going to happen with
all this mlab stuff - either the correct rules should be followed and
this integrated in properly with the maps, or it probably shouldn't be
there.
In terms of integrating a moving target, I don't see how it would be any
better if they weren't in CVS. Really, the target is still moving if one
was trying to work from Mike's periodic mlab release tarballs, so though
it being in CVS doesn't solve the moving target problem, it does allow
the movement of the target to be tracked better which IMHO is somewhat
helpful to the moving target situation, even if only slightly.
In terms of mapguide issues, I agree, though if Mike is too unwilling to
change, it may be possible to fix many of the mapguide issues by script
(i.e. the directory layout could be autogenerated from the map name
prefixes that Mike is using), however chances are this would break from
time to time, so I don't see this as too appealing an option unless Mike
is willing to adopt such fixes for the development of mlab. I know one
of Mike's worries with changing his current layout is that scripts could
possibly end up creating small errors and breakage.
Question to Mike: What exactly in the mapguide are you opposed to? And
why exactly?
Alex Schultz
_______________________________________________
crossfire mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
