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 21:36:00 GMT
Inlne:

David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 10:39 AM:
>
> This looks like more of a separate repository than a branch of OFBiz.
yes and no.
since it would usually not be merged back to ofbiz, yes, being able to 
sync trunk to branch that all in the branch work with no.

>
> First off, the term "branch" just doesn't apply. A branch of a source repository is

effectively a copy of the repo that can be changed separately
that was the intention.

and is meant to eventually be merged back into the trunk.
If a branch is not meant to be merged back into the trunk, it is a fork.
So version 4.0 9.04, 10.4 will be merged back to the trunk?
or are they now Forks?
>
> What you're describing isn't even a fork as it doesn't sound like it would be a copy
of OFBiz that is changed separately,
matter of perspective
but rather a repository for add-on modules.
of course they are addons.
for instance the manufacturing, travel and Eccommerce would be defined 
as addon, Just as the finacial Services, telecommunication, 
Proffiessional services, Insurance and HealthCare are in the vol II of 
data model book.
so why limit it to just those vertical markets. there are many.
By having the trunk brought into the Contributors "section" they would 
could access it and pull down everything at once to work with or use.

>
> Also, it sounds like it would best be done outside of the ASF, especially
the reason to keep it was the ability to move the truck into it.

if you don't want a vote where PMC votes are binding... that's all there 
is at the ASF.
clarification  it was meant to communicate the popular vote is meant as 
an indicatore, but the PMC would be the deciding vote.
>
> For those interested, why not just create a sourceforge or google code project and share
commit access with others who are interested? There is nothing that says OFBiz add-on modules
have to be part of the project, or that people can't create separate projects to do such things.
If various people want to work together to do so, from the community spirit perspective...
all the better!
it also gives ofbiz a greater appeal to the users that may use ofbiz in 
a vertical market.
and it does not stop  any current developer from learning and offering 
these.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:11 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal
>>
>> 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 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message