On May 20, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Roald de Wit wrote:
> Hi Jeroen et al,
> Jeroen Ticheler wrote:
>> At this point I want to have some discussion on the GeoNetwork
>> developer list to find a good working solution. The most obvious
>> one for me is to have sandboxes set up for those that develop new
>> functions. This will allow a developer to just do his work as
>> normal, but has the big advantage that others can see what's
>> happening and can be informed on forehand. So when time comes to
>> merge new code to trunk, we already had a chance to see the code
>> (through commit mailing list for instance) and the process of a
>> proposal and voting would be slimmed down a lot.
>> Looking forward to some good discussion on this.
> The process you are describing above looks very similar to what
> happens in OpenLayers (not sure if you had this project in mind when
Oh, didn't know about that! Good to know.
> IMO, having sandboxes is a good thing. Besides what you mention
> above, it makes it easier to collaborate, stay up-to-date with and
> create patches against the trunk. OpenLayers has recently started
> having an add-in system for useful contributions that don't belong
> to the core application. A similar approach could work well with
> GeoNetwork too, I assume.
Yes, can well imagine such thing. This is particularly true for things
like language modules, application profiles and custom 'skins' but
also for custom editor interfaces or add-ons like the metadata
> If there is approval from the GeoNetwork PSC, how soon could we see
> (amongst others) the BlueNet branch in the GeoNetwork SVN repository
> (maybe as a sandbox to start with)? How does the BlueNet team feel
> about this possible move? Does this sound like the 'wheels' that
> CSIRO could help out greasing (if resources are a problem)?
For what the PSC approval concerns, I can second or make a proposal
with input from others. That shouldn't be a long process though.
> Roald de Wit
> Software Engineer
> Commercial Support for Open Source GIS Software