Jonathon, You should read other messages, then you w'd have seen Chris's about the new thread. Ok not a big deal. ;o)
Happy that you did not feel my last message "rude" and that your answer is understandable by me (I must aknowledge that sometimes you lost me). Perhaps kepping the habit of using numbered points will help our communication (we have to keep it as concise as possible), trying : Seems that only the 3d point needs some comments, they are inline... ----- Message d'origine ----- De : "Jonathon -- Improov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> À : <[email protected]> Envoyé : dimanche 22 avril 2007 12:27 Objet : Re: Ofbiz Contribution Proposal > Jacques, > > You lost me. I don't see where you are (or were ever) rude. > > > a. You have your own branch(es) of OFBiz > > Yes, I have multiple branches sometimes, which will stabilize and collapse into a few (possibly 2 > or 3) branches, and then eventually come down to trunk. > > Usually, when I see a huge patch(es) I might like, I'll see many branches popping up. > > > 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 > > Hmm. That didn't happen. > > The trick is to keep a record of exactly where you branched off, to know how and which > files/folders to do a diff. Of course, you'll need to know which direction to do the diff-patch. > > > c. This is not a problem for you (your branch is a fork but good > > for you) > > If my branch isn't kept in step with OFBiz trunk, that's not ok for me. The OFBiz trunk is > constantly getting updates and bugfixes. Like I said, the "loss of control" didn't happen. I am > still in step with OFBiz trunk. Only issue I have is that the OFBiz trunk can't keep in step with > my own updates, which is fine by me if I really don't mind kicking back and relaxing after > finishing my own work. > > > d. You don't have time to extract your changes atomically but > > with a huge patch (unusable by commiters) > > You're right on this count. Due to the way I perform wholesale aggressive merges (to bring in big > enhancements), my commits are not small. They are quite mostly large and wide in scope. I perform > such wholesale merges, then somehow systematically pick off all incompatibilities. > > Hence, I can only feed large patches to the community, not atomic ones like "Added feature A" or > "Fixed bug B". > > > 3. So your only solution to have your changes in the trunk is for us to > > open a branch for you > > No, the solution is for myself to give you a patch that will bring 2 things together: the latest > of OFBiz and the latest of my work. I can tell you that I've tested this patch, but it's really up > to the community to trust me. > > On your part, the solution would be to just dump my patch into your trunk. Or if you want to have > a cautious look-see first, you could open a new branch just to test out my patch. This > "exploratory/probationary" branch will be very short-lived, possibly 2-3 updates in the timeline. > After the few updates, you can decide: > > a. My patch is playing well with the latest of OFBiz, and you merge it into > trunk. > > OR > > b. My patch still has too many incompatibilities with OFBiz, and you discard > it. To be able to test your changes it'd be really better to at least have an idea of the features that are added (or withdrawed f any). If they are many changes and we don't know which they are, just funding our reviewing work from a diff might be a nightmare. > As you can see, the bulk of the work is on my part, in "bringing the latest of OFBiz and my work > together". The fact that I already have the latest of OFBiz playing with my enhancements is > already more than half the work done. > > Most folks I come across don't know how to do that part. I was suggesting that someone among us, > someone comfortable with version control adventures, perform that merge for those who can't. Following http://tinyurl.com/2o5bld this should not be too hard I guess. Even for people (like me for instance) that have never played with branches in their own work (ok I have an advantage : I read the book) > I'm gonna assume you understand the concepts I tried to describe above. It's dinner time now. > > Ultimately, the concepts involve "maximizing concurrency". It won't be good if I find myself > limiting my rate/size of progress just so I don't "lose control" or lose sight of OFBiz trunk. I > just moved ahead at full speed, all the while being confident that OFBiz trunk will always be > mergeable into my SVN. The question is whether the OFBiz SVN is similarly confident about merging > our mad-cap-paced work into OFBiz trunk. Yes I understand your POV. It stays that merging your change might be a challenge. And I'm not sure who will want to take it or rather have enough "free" time to do it. Explaining clearly what these changes might bring to OFBiz (at the businnes and technical levels) would surely be a *1st step* in this direction. Please, don't misunderstand me. Here, I'm trying to find a way to be able to merge your changes because I'm sure they are worth it. Also remember this discussion we had with Chris (and others) about "joint work" and licence. This is perhaps the worse issue in your case ! You may Googlize or use Nabble if you need explanations... Jacques > Jonathon > > Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > 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 > > > >
