Yeah - after I responded to this, I remembered you discussing this previously and wondered if something had changed. The position of aggregator is a huge on in this process - but something we should consider if it gives us the flexibility and wherewithal to make better decisions longer term. Anyways, thanks for the info gents - it was informative and something I'd like to look further into for sure.
Cheers, Ruppert On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > Tim Ruppert wrote: >> +1 - and thanks for laying it out Ean. I guess the only question remains is >> what stops us from moving in this direction if we can achieve exactly what >> Ean's talking about? This sounds like something that would allow all of us >> the ability to manage the pieces we want to without polluting the code base >> with internal initiatives. >> >> Alas, I do feel like this might be a huge departure for many - but this >> seems like it might fix many of the contentious issues that waste a ton of >> time around here. > > It's unfortunate, but even tho Ean and I have be evangelizing ofbiz, I > can't recommend at the time it's use for managing ofbiz code. > > Right now, ofbiz has a single source for any changes. svn on apache. > If suddenly we start going the distributed route, then were will > official changes come from? Who will step up to be responsible for > pulling code from everyone else? I don't think there is anyone in > this community who is willing to spend this huge amount of time, just > being a code aggregator. It's an expensive position.
