ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From BJ Freeman <bjf...@free-man.net>
Subject Re: Contributor branches, was: Attaching files to a product
Date Sat, 10 Jul 2010 06:41:26 GMT
I had looked this up earlier

A committer is a developer that was given write access to the code 
repository and has a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on file. 
They have an apache.org mail address. Not needing to depend on other 
people for the patches, they are actually making short-term decisions 
for the project. The PMC can (even tacitly) agree and approve it into 
permanency, or they can reject it. Remember that the PMC makes the 
decisions, not the individual people.
PMC Member

A PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to merit 
for the evolution of the project and demonstration of commitment. They 
have write access to the code repository, an apache.org mail address, 
the right to vote for the community-related decisions and the right to 
propose an active user for committership. The PMC as a whole is the 
entity that controls the project, nobody else.

Scott Gray sent the following on 7/9/2010 10:53 PM:
> It would be less work to merge such changes back than it would be to try and administer
any number of contributor branches.
> The ASF has pretty clear policies about who can commit to ASF repositories and the process
for granting those privileges.  You cannot simply grant commit privileges at will even if
it is only to a branch.
> You disappoint me as a PMC member to even be raising the idea, it would be nice if you
had at least a basic understanding of how the ASF works.
> Regards
> Scott
> On 10/07/2010, at 5:43 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> You disappoint me as a technical person that you do not see the benefit
>> of being able to easily merge changes back in the branch what is not
>> possible in sourceforge etc...
>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:27 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>> 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 them.
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>>>> BJ Freeman<http://bjfreeman.elance.com>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> BTW your quoting is terrible, I never made the statement
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> --
>> 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