Christopher, Thanks for the answers, and for the positive feedbacks!
I just have an opinion I would like to share. ...and that instead of having tile.php > in the OpenLayers examples, we should simply remove it totally. > Really? One thing that I liked most in OL is that there are a lot of examples all in one single place, with all you need to start playing with OL. In this sense, I think it's good to maintaing the php code in there. But that's my humble thought as a user. As a developer I must agree that it makes sense putting them on ka-Map only, so future changes won't require an update on OL example files. Anyway, I'll follow your recommendation and post those informations on ka-Map list. I'll also create an account on OL's trac to easier our communication about these issues Any further comments on your tickets, I'll do through trac/seperate > maisl to the list: thanks for the summary, and the hard work! > Sorry, I didn't get it right. Are you saying that future techical comments should be posted on trac? regards, Pedro Simonetti. 2008/4/27 Christopher Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:48:39AM -0300, Pedro Simonetti Garcia wrote: > > Hi Christopher, > > > > I'm new to OL community, so I don't know all the internal > > proceedings / rules to report bugs, write tickets, and so on. > > So, forgive me if I skip some steps. > > > > I wrote the tickets #327 e #1519 of this list. > > > > http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/327 > > Right, I need to respond to this one, as the de facto maintainer of the > ka-Map integration with OpenLayers. What it comes down to, breifly, is > that I believe the fixes you have described should be happening > upstream, with the ka-Map project, and that instead of having tile.php > in the OpenLayers examples, we should simply remove it totally. > Similarly, 1518 below: the precache.php.txt file does not belong in > OpenLayers, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with the > KaMapCache layer, if you're interested in it. > > > http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1519 > > This is simple, and I just haven't learned enough about translations to > test them yet, so I haven't done anything with it. It looksfine in > general. > > > I also wrote a comment on issue #1108, which is related to > > the #864 that is flagged to 2.7 milestone. > > > > http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1108 > > http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/864 > > > > I'm also the author of the #1518, which is related to the #1519: > > > > And I wish to help with this issues, but I'm not sure > > exactly how to proceed. I reported those tickets using a > > anonymous username/pass. Should I create a account > > and post a comment in those tickets to make easier future > > discussions about them? > > That would be good, yeah. > > Your patches, in general, look fine, and I'm glad to know you're still > aware of them and looking to push them forward. So long as that's the > case, there's no problem leaving them in the current milestone. I'm > mosty looking to push a lot of things that people have opened and > forgotten about forward, if there is no active work on them. > > Any further comments on your tickets, I'll do through trac/seperate > maisl to the list: thanks for the summary, and the hard work! > > > If you are interested in my help, please let me know. > > > > my best regards, > > > > Pedro Simonetti. > > > > 2008/4/27 Christopher Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > The 2.7 ticket list is a mess. I'd like to put some effort into > cleaning > > > it up, but to be honest, it's a bit of a big job for me alone. > > > > > > > > > > http://trac.openlayers.org/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&group=type&milestone=2.7+Release > > > > > > We have 105 tickets in this release. > > > > > > Although some metadata is wrong: > > > * 38 are bugs > > > * 57 are features > > > * 10 are tasks > > > > > > Some of these have active work being done on them. Some of them just > > > need a thorough review. Some of them are probably not being actively > > > worked on, or are just an idea. > > > > > > I think that if there is a ticket here that you consider yourself > > > 'owner' of -- for example, if you reported it -- and you are no longer > > > actively working on this ticket, that you move it to a different > > > milestone than the 2.7 milestone. There is one for 2.8 -- if you're > not > > > currently working on it, but you still intend to at some near-future > > > point, that might be a good place to put it. If you don't intend to > get > > > back to it, but you're still interested in the functionality, please > > > feel free to toss it to the "Future" milestone. Note that this is all > > > just my opinion, since we don't have any strong rules on this... would > > > love to hear others opinions. > > > > > > I don't think we have any specific plans for 2.7 at this point, but > I'd > > > personally like to keep our releases a bit more release-early > > > release-often than 2.6 ended up being, and the current 100+ tickets > that > > > are open is just a bit overwhelming for me... > > > > > > Looking forward to hearing/seeing more discussion. > > > > > > Regards, > > > -- > > > Christopher Schmidt > > > MetaCarta > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Dev mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > > > -- > Christopher Schmidt > MetaCarta >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
