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 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal was: Attaching files to a product
Date Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:11:15 GMT

David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 9:03 AM:
> Hans,
> How would you create such a branch, or what would that look like? Who would be able to
commit to it?
> -David
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> 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
>>>>>> problem contributing because of the number of technical people in
>>>>>> PMC which often only judge on technical qualities and making the
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> members who would support this?
>>>>>> To be honest i think that you should try to become a committer, i
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> and more extensive model.
>>>>>>>> Congratulations, where can I download a copy of this BJBiz?
>>>>>>>> try and keep in mind that we are discussing OFBiz in this
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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