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 branch Proposal, was: Contributor branches was: Attaching files to a product
Date Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:06:03 GMT
one point I never intended the branch be merged into the trunk
it would remain a branch of contributions that users could integrate 
back into their own copy.

Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/15/2010 1:59 AM:
> Shouldn't we do a proof of concept?
> I will volunteer to create and update a new branch for BJ to start and
> everyone who would like to contribute. When the people on this branch
> say they are ready we can judge what is there and/or provide suggestions
> for enhancement.
> After general consensus the branch will be merged into the trunk.
> Any comments?
> Regards,
> Hans
> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 18:21 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal
>> BJ Freeman sent the following on 7/9/2010 11:07 PM:
>>> I am writing a proposal for Contributors branch.
>>> some of the points are:
>>> 1)components not continued to be supported in the specialpurpose get
>>> move to the contributors branch till interest is renewed.
>>> this would simplify maintaining the trunk but allow people to pull it
>>> down if they want to work on it.
>>> 2)there is no guarantee of the ofbiz community support of the
>>> contributions.
>>> 3)people can test the contribution and may vote to include it in the trunk.
>>> 4)it gives one place to make sure all contributions are integrated with
>>> the latest trunk and each other without effecting the trunk.
>>> it puzzles me that it is ok open a branch to collorate, but when
>>> opportunity to have a lot of contributions avalible that would spread
>>> Ofbiz acceptance you bulk. under you logic that it can be done elsewhere
>>> why not do the same for Hippo.
>>> I would be interested in your reasons why besides it can be elsewhere.
>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/9/2010 10:27 PM:
>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> faster, however i am happy to provide Jiras.
>>>>>> so if the Jiras I put patches in are accepted then the ofbiz will
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> 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