ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com>
Subject Re: Contributor branches, was: Attaching files to a product
Date Sat, 10 Jul 2010 05:27:16 GMT
What need would contributor branches meet that can't already be met using the likes of sourceforge,
google code or github?

Regarding your other statements, at some point Hans you are going to need to ask yourself
why it is mostly only your commits that cause so much negative discussion.  Everyone else
seems to work together just fine for the most part.  I'm not saying it's all your fault but
you can't just blame everyone else for these problems and ignore your own contribution to


On 10/07/2010, at 2:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> I have the same opinion as you BJ, even as a committer it is too much
> problem contributing because of the number of technical people in the
> PMC which often only judge on technical qualities and making the system
> technically as difficult as possible. 
> The current discussion (not really sure if it is one) between Adrian and
> me is a good example.
> I think it would be a good idea to have contributor branches. Other PMC
> members who would support this?
> To be honest i think that you should try to become a committer, i know
> why you did not accept in the past, but please reconsider.
> Regards,
> Hans
> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 18:33 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> my goal has always been to have this ofbiz do this. it has never been my 
>> intent to have a seperate ofbiz. Nor am I promoting mine.
>> my problem up to now has been acceptance and resources.
>> I see the winds changing on acceptance and I have gotten the resources.
>> if you note I suggest years ago to have contributor branches.
>> Had that happened I would have contributed to it instead of create mine.
>> I see the equivalent of contributor branch happening more like the 
>> Current Hippo branch.
>> so if someone wants to open a branch I can just submit to, it would be 
>> faster, however i am happy to provide Jiras.
>> so if the Jiras I put patches in are accepted then the ofbiz will work 
>> the same as the one I have.
>> Note my first major move to accomplish this
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3852
>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/9/2010 5:18 PM:
>>> On 10/07/2010, at 1:06 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>> a product is more of a marketing item
>>>> a part is a description of a function
>>>> they vary for engineering and manufacturing. Engineering does not assign
a commercial product to the part where manufacture may list many actual purchase parts that
will never be sold individually.
>>>> I see in the model book the one I implemented is the alternative and more
extensive model.
>>> Congratulations, where can I download a copy of this BJBiz?  Please try and keep
in mind that we are discussing OFBiz in this mailing list, not your derivative of it.
>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/5/2010 5:53 PM:
>>>>> In OFBiz a Part is a Product, so what is your point?
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>> On 6/07/2010, at 12:16 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>> I wish to be able to have our engineers link plans to parts
>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>> BJ Freeman<http://bjfreeman.elance.com>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> BTW your quoting is terrible, I never made the statement below
>>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/5/2010 5:02 PM:
>>>>>>> I wish to be able to have our engineers link plans to parts
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

View raw message