-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Fyi. This sounds like a sound proposal. Are we up to it?
Regards,
- --
Arnulf Christl
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAktmrY4ACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b3s4QCePAtU3sTsFhbHtcd6GchfB71Z
zIsAnivX28MOz/m4svTCWFfHGTbfYfjF
=4nqd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- Begin Message ---
Hamish,
You raise some good points about "What should we consider as stable
software" for the LiveDVD.
I think that this question is equally valid for the OSGeo incubation
process too, and should be added to the incubation list of questions.
I think we need to define "stable software" so that we have a clear yard
stick and guidelines for assessing whether to put a project in our
"stable" or "beta" section of our LiveDVD.
Here is a definition:
"The term /stable/ refers to a version of software that is substantially
identical to a version that has been through enough real-world testing
to reasonably assume there are no significant problems, or at least that
any problems are known and documented."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Stable_or_unstable
So I suggest we ask:
* Does the project have a build process which puts our candidate
releases which are tested before releasing a stable release?
* Does the project have a test suite which is run before putting out a
stable release? Ideally tests should be run before putting out any release.
* Does the project have a diverse community who test candidate releases
before putting out a stable release?
These questions should be included in the Incubation Project Status
Template:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Project_Status_Template
They should also be added to the LiveDVD build process.
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GISVM_Build
Frank,
Do you mind if I create a new draft of the Project Status Template,
maybe at:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Draft_Project_Status_Template
Hamish wrote:
Cameron wrote:
How stable are these packages?
The best I can provide is a subjective answer- different people
and projects will have totally different thresholds and ideas of
what that actually means. I spend most of my time with Debian
and GRASS, both of which are extrememly conservative with what
they call "stable", so that's my bias. (Debian's "unstable" is
probably more mature than most other distros stable releases,
so I'm not really sure how to compare ...)
I'll try though:
-Will they work without crashing? Yes.
-GMT: very mature and well established for years.
-Octave: mature and well established for years.
-Octave mapping toolbox: I've little experience with it but it's
an official debian/ubuntu package fwtw.
-OpenCPN: a bit of a newcomer compared to the others but largely
put together from established mature libraries (gdal+libS52+...),
by an active dev team. At version "1.3.6" with packaged versions
available for Mac,Win,and Ubuntu, for whatever that means.
-OSM tools: I've little experience with them myself, but as they
are standed packages used by hundreds of OSMers all over the
world I assume they are pretty mature.
So I'd say that all are well in the "stable" category and have
reached the point of critical mass, but within that you can
probably open any geophysical journal from the last 10 years and
find a plot made with GMT, while at the other end of the
spectrum OpenCPN only began around 5-6 years ago and has only
applied to be an official debian/ubuntu package in the last 6
months.
Hamish
--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Systems Architect
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Mapbender_dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapbender_dev
