Sorry Chris, I did not read your message before "answering" to Jonathon, so I kept the wrong thread (Re: Ofbiz Contribution Proposal)
Jacques De : "Chris Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Objet : Re: Post Branch Enhancements (was Re: Ofbiz Contribution Proposal) > 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 > > >> > > > > > > >
