ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Date Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:30:07 GMT

Le 21/06/2014 17:41, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
> I understand the costs of open source but most are in a bit better shape.
> We use around 50 OSS packages in our own software.

I guess most other projects have not the scope of an ERP. This is one of the problem with
OFBiz documentation: where should it stop.
On the other hand I agree that documentations like setups and such need to up to date an as
clear as possible.

> This also makes me look at documentation very critically since I understand how the cost
of using OSS depends to a great degree on the documentation.
> It appears that there is a lot of documentation for OfBiz but it is in a lot of places
and a lot has not been update as things change.

It's impossible to centralize others efforts... It's even difficult to be sure about our own
documentation. I tend to think now that we should rather 
remove all what is wrong, or even deprecated, rather than trying to barely keep those alive.

> Unfortunately I ran into problems in the very first step where the installation docs
were both wrong and outdated in ways that made me question the 
> project management of the project.  This has an impact on the long-term cost of going
with OfBiz.

Yes, that should ever be reported like you did. In order for us to keep thing cleans, thanks
for your effort!

> I appreciate that this is a volunteer organization and that project management is not
easy in this environment but that just makes it harder not 
> optional.
> I also appreciate that the development team includes important contributors for whom,
English is not their first language.
> It is easy for me to fix the problems that this causes, if the facts are correct and
written down in some form.
> It is easy to reword a paragraph but almost impossible to make up content that does not
> Je puis lire et parler français et écrire avec difficulté.

Je confirme, en effet !


> However, Google translate is still one of my best friends!
> It also helps clean up English.
> It is sometimes helpful to run an English paragraph through Google to see if it is sufficiently
clear for Google to translate correctly.
> Often a simple restructuring of the English to fix Google's French translation makes
the paragraph much easier to read.
> Ron
> On 20/06/2014 4:23 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Le 16/06/2014 22:54, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>>> A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier exchanges
about documentation but a release just got approved with no comments 
>>> or questions about documentation.
>>> I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was ready for
>>> I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.
>>> The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end processes
reflect the framework rather than the use case.
>>> Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of simple processes
has been done correctly.
>>> I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am starting
to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.
>>> The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on eCommerce.
>> I think the community is more diverse but "web companies focused on eCommerce" are
more vocal indeed.
>>> Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of OfBiz.
>> Few, not many, you can refer to the top of this page https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List
>>> I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an accountant
and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties, AR and 
>>> AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.
>>> It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in explaining the
framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
>>> I do not need more overhead.
>> There is  a price to pay to be free http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien
(I guess you know how to use Google translate)
>>> If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to invest in
UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using it who 
>>> are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will never get to
be a polished product.
>> I think Adrian already well explained this point. To add something: I'm currently
working on a project where OFBiz is only seen as a services 
>> engine, most people using OFBiz don't care about its UI, because of what Adrian explained.
>> Jacques
>>> I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had to since
it does fit with our core competencies as far as software 
>>> development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could help
improve some of our processes.
>>> As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do go ahead
but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team 
>>> members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.
>>> Probably just more ranting!
>>> Ron
>>> On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are
you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your 
>>>> standards?
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>>>>> are not paid?
>>>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down
>>>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include
>>>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing
to be
>>>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard
for a
>>>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation
>>>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the
>>>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>> Given the errors in  the wiki documentation and the lack
of on-line
>>>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered
"tested" (try to
>>>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production
database and
>>>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual
tests" unless
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does
not do anything
>>>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes
get into the
>>>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be
made without
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are
worked on in a
>>>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a
target level of
>>>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA
issues on which
>>>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>>>> <jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug
fix) release for the
>>>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz
12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number:
"03"), will supersede
>>>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package,
based on the 12.04
>>>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached
signature file
>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its
signatures (for
>>>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released
use majority
>>>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must
vote affirmatively
>>>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive
than negative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community
will cancel the
>>>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems,
but in most
>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual
serving as release
>>>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo


View raw message