Jonathon,
I don't want to be agressive or let you thing that I like to make
"off-tangent" remarks. Here is what I think (I can't tell that facts):
1. I'm sure you might be able to be a great help for the community.
2. I better understand now why you'd like to have an "open" branch,
correct me if I'm wrong
a. You have your own branch(es) of OFBiz
b. Not using our standard strategy (moving with the community, not
alone) you "losed" the control about the changes you made respectively
to the OFBiz trunk
c. This is not a problem for you (your branch is a fork but good for
you)
d. You don't have time to extract your changes atomically but with a
huge patch (unusable by commiters)
3. So your only solution to have your changes in the trunk is for us to
open a branch for you
Okay I'm a bit rude but you forced me and that's really what I think.
Of course I'm open to discussion, you may also pass by my comments.
Sorry and good luck
Jacques
----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Jonathon -- Improov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : <[email protected]>
Envoyé : dimanche 22 avril 2007 04:21
Objet : Re: Ofbiz Contribution Proposal
> 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
> >>
> >
