Tim,
I've already taken those "first steps" long ago. Like I said, I don't know which Jira "feature
requests" are not reviewed; I only know those I have merged into my own SVN. I really don't have
time to send up itemized or clearly demarcated patches.
Many patches I grabbed from folks (sorry I did it so fast, I don't even know who), they work. Some
require streamlining mainly to match OFBiz coding standards and such, but still they do work. By
now, radical patches (like those from Chris Howes?) have gone through merging, and have even taken
a life (progressed) of their own. That's why I can't tell you "which Jira issues", because my
"private Jira store", so to speak, has "moved on". If I can do this aggressively merging without
problems (please use branches for sanity's sake), I am assuming the community of 400 here can do
the same, if not better. (And I'm guessing a good majority of this 400 might just be doing what I
am doing, and OFBiz is none the better for it.)
For now, let's just all do what we're good at, and keep at it. Maybe some day, I can submit a
gigantic patch and it will somehow translate into a bigger better OFBiz. For now, I can't help but
leech off of OFBiz, every single update, but still can't feed the whole sum back to OFBiz. Tough
on my conscience, but something I'll have to live with.
By the way, I have no idea what some folks here are intending to achieve with some off-tangent
remarks. If it's "status quo" they want (in relation to me and "my" patches, ie), they've got it.
If you can understand what I'm doing in my own computers (with OFBiz and radical patches), that's
good and you may do the same good(?) thing in time. If not, I may change my bad(?) tactics over
time. Either way, let's just get back to what we're good at.
Jonathon
Tim Ruppert wrote:
Jonathon - as has always been the case - the role of reviewing "complex"
patches does not fall strictly on the committers - it falls on the
entire community. The committers then have the role of putting the code
into the trunk.
If you are so concerned that valid works are not being put back into the
trunk aggressively enough (which I think that everyone who spends time
over here would agree), could you try the proactive approach of looking
at more patches and letting the community know which ones you think are
tested well enough and offer enough value to go back into the trunk?
That would be a GREAT first step and a very nice change of pace from the
aggressive tone you seem to think is appropriate.
Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595
On Apr 20, 2007, at 10:49 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
David,
> "We" do not now, nor have we ever, turned away a contribution because it
> was complex.
Very well, I'll just use the word "you" then. I take it that you do
not turn away contributions because they were complex.
The question from me would be whether you do or do not turn away,
knowingly or not, contributions that are valid but too complex for
review. It's not rhetorical, but you're free to do your own
sanity/verification checks on that supposed phenomenon and deem it
rhetorical or invalid.
> Could you do us all a big favor Jonathon? Your comments seem to be
> fairly consistent along these lines. I think what would be helpful to
> you, and to anyone reading and agreeing with your comments, is to step
> back and try to explain why things are the way they are. Feel free to
> share that with the group for a sanity check if you'd like.
I'm not so sure of the "why" of things, but am only more certain of
the "what" of things. Things are the way they are, no matter how we
interpret the "why".
So, for now, I continue to merge in (to my own SVN) several
contributions that are deemed too difficult to review/merge by the
committers. I continue to keep such enhancements in step with updates
from OFBiz trunk. And I continue in my failure(?) to feed such
"compatibilized/merged" enhancements back to OFBiz trunk even though
they really are the same license.
And the phenomenon of several of us (incompatible contributors?)
holding on to our own enhancements will continue. Some of us may not
know how to keep in step with OFBiz trunk updates; others may. Those
of us who can keep in step will continue to benefit from OFBiz
progress, but be unable to feed the benefit back to OFBiz. There will
still be enhancements out there that are kept away/apart from OFBiz.
That's the way of things? Or maybe not?
I stand corrected. I think I am "helping" OFBiz in the wrong way. I'll
stop that. :) Thanks for reminding me.
I was waiting to dump the loads of my enhancements into your trunk,
but I think I should take a sanity check for now. Anyway, there needs
to be at least one stabilizing branch (save point, so to speak) before
we can go full steam with the trunk. And there's still no such branch yet.
Jonathon
David E. Jones wrote:
On Apr 20, 2007, at 9:04 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
We shouldn't turn away complex contributions anymore.
"We" do not now, nor have we ever, turned away a contribution because
it was complex.
I myself have loads of enhancements (mostly to widget module) that I
feel uneasy about releasing to the community, simply because of this
odd use of trunk: it's used like a slow-moving release branch that
is unable to handle introductions of radical enhancements.
Yet, this somewhat slow-moving trunk isn't still enough and focused
enough on achieving release-quality stability. It's the worst of
both worlds: it's not rapid enough to allow for radical progress,
and not calm and focused-on-cleaning-up enough to produce a stable
release for non-OFBiz developers.
Could you do us all a big favor Jonathon? Your comments seem to be
fairly consistent along these lines. I think what would be helpful to
you, and to anyone reading and agreeing with your comments, is to
step back and try to explain why things are the way they are. Feel
free to share that with the group for a sanity check if you'd like.
-David
