Jonathon,
I thought about all that and at this point I believe, regarding licence
issues, the only way is for you
1. to create Jira issues for your own proper additions/modifications
(being careful to don't mix "joint work", and checking ASL granted of
course)
2. to comment in existing Jira issues the results of your tests (and
vote if positive) to help commiters and accelerate commits
Hope this help and you agree
Jacques
Jacques,
Glad I seem to be making sense to you. Please pardon my inability to
explain some concepts; I'm
more a worker than a teacher/discusser.
> 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.
Yes, every commit does have some comments about what is added or
changed. However, there are also
some comments that say: "Brought in Chris Howe's Rico experiment.".
Again, the trick is I brought
in a huge wide-spanning stuff on a short-lived exploratory branch.
Sort of like me saying, "Let me
try out being a casanova for a short time, just a quick try". I'm not
a casanova, not
french/italian (sorry for stereotype, blame the movies), and I'd
probably get in a lot of trouble
for trying. But SVN is not like real life.
My ability/inability to "compatibilize" a huge patch with my work will
determine whether or not
the exploratory branch dies or gets merged into my trunk. If I do have
a casanova in me, I can try
some casanova lifestyle in the "main branch (trunk)" of my life; if
not, that exploratory branch
gets pruned off for good, never to be merged into my trunk.
> Yes I understand your POV. It stays that merging your change might
be a
> challenge.
No more a challenge than merging OFBiz trunk into our own work, due to
the instability of the
trunk. If you recall, there are some folks who tried to "marry latest
of OFiz with own
enhancements", and they failed.
If I can use exploratory branches to bring in OFBiz trunk updates
_wholesale_ (my commit logs go
like "brought in OFBiz trunk r123:456), the question still remains:
Should it be that tough for
OFBiz SVN to bring in radical enhancements the way I bring in OFBiz
trunk updates?
OFBiz trunk updates, especially when they span a week, are just as
"radical/un-atomic" as the
enhancements Karl or the rest of us try to submit.
> 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...
That's why I was following Chris Howes' dissertations on the "joint
work" issue.
I've since read the ASL 2.0.
Merging my changes shouldn't be that difficult, since I only pull in
stuff from JIRA and other
donations clearly labelled as ASL. Unless... I misunderstood that all
patches/comments in JIRA
were explicitly contributed under ASL.
As with all merges, the further the deviation (given time), the more
difficult to reconcile.
Karl's contribution was 2 years in the making; that's 1.99 years too
late to bring in. Yet, that
is still earlier than 2.01 years. The longer we wait (eg "please hold,
we're busy, we'll look into
your enhancements soon"), the more difficult to reconcile.
Similarly, for the release branch, there really is no point at all in
waiting to fork one. OFBiz
is already very full-featured as it is now; it's a different case when
OFBiz has not even ONE
function working.
Hope all that makes sense to you.
Jonathon
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
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
