--- On Thu, 9/16/10, David E Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > > > On 09/16/2010 01:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[email protected]> > >>>> This description of events isn't entirely > true. > >>>> > >>>> David didn't reject Andrew's design, the > community in general felt > >>>> excluded from the design process. David > simply asked that we discuss > >>>> the design before code was committed. > >>> > >>> Yes exactly, thanks for clarifying Adrian, I > knew I had left some points > >>> behind > >>> > >>>> The security redesign was the outcome of > that discussion. As far as I > >>>> know, David and I agreed on the final > design, but interest in it fell > >>>> off. I ended up being the only person > working on it. Since then, David > >>>> has included the security redesign in his > new project. > >>> > >>> I tought there were some stumbling blocks, > notably when merging your > >>> works. > >> > >> We only disagreed on the workflow. David wanted to > commit all the > >> changes at once and I wanted to commit them a > little at a time. > > > > Completely brand new code that doesn't touch anything > else *at all* can be committed as a single large > chunk. But if you need to alter a bunch of other stuff > scattered all over, separate commits are better. It > makes it easier to verify correctness, and helps in 4 years > when you are trying to figure out why something is broken. > > I agree, it is WAY better to have hundreds of small commits > with questionable code state in between them. > > Again though, Adrian misrepresented what I wanted to do, > namely implement the ExecutionContext in a branch and once > it is complete and the rest of the framework is cleaned up > merge that back into the trunk. I suppose you could say the > point of the branch was an attempt to collaborate with > others, and on that account it worked out beautifully... > I've given up entirely on these things in the OFBiz > Framework and instead decided a separate project was the > only viable way to see it through.
So, should Moqui be renamed to "One Man's Spite"? -Adrian
