All, Again, can we please not hijack threads. We have relatively few eyes that understand the underpinnings of the entity-engine enough to possibly improve upon it that it would be a shame for that discussion to get lost in the noise of project administration discussion.
Jonathon, Hmph, I only have about ten patches in Jira that affect OFBiz code directly (thus would suffer from difficulty in sharing a progressed revision) and none of them seem to have comment from you. It's one thing to leach code; we yield that risk by using the Apache license specifically and OSS in general, however it seems counter-intuitive to take the time to review code enough to put it into your private project but not offer the constructive criticism necessary to get it improved upon or draw the attention of others to get it into the project. This seems like a lose-lose-lose approach. You're forced to maintain obscure code on your own, the author is forced to maintain or abandon the obscure code and the community doesn't gain the benefit of the code or the administrative benefit of knowing to ignore the contribution if it's not a good idea for the project. --- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > >> > > > >
