If you agree with me than let's commit to trunk first (if the objections from committers are cleared, and I am not sure it is the case with Scott's one, even if I didn't review this particular one) and remove it from the branch. But most importantly: are we (and are you) sure that this was the only patch that was committed to the branch but it is not strictly related to the portletWidget work? The fact that I am not sure about it is the main motivation for my -1.
Kind regards, Jacopo On Nov 17, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > I understand your formal concerns about being mixed with the branch and I > agree with you. > > Apart that, I did not find anything against this patch > http://ofbiz.markmail.org/search/?q=OFBIZ-4949 > Only Scoot's comment about using fieldName="" which is cleary a less > dangerous but also less powerfull solution for the requirement > > I don't see it as something dangerous since it would be only used by file and > with a clear intention of the author. Do I miss something? Else would be a +1 > for me to be directly in trunk > > Jacques > > From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[email protected]> >> Just to clarify: I understand that this feature is useful for the >> portletWidget implementation, but it is a *framework* feature that has to be >> discussed/approved/committed to trunk before the portletWidget code can use >> it, not vice versa. >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Nov 17, 2012, at 7:54 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> >>> Erwan, >>> >>> could you please explain why this patch was committed to the portletWidget >>> branch? There were some objections in Jira and in general there was no >>> general approval for the inclusion. Also, it was a patch for the trunk, not >>> the branch. >>> >>> This is not the way to go, the branch is not the playground of one >>> committer and we cannot use it as an easy way (a lot of traffic, less >>> reviews from committers) to see the code we like committed to trunk. If >>> this is the general trend, I am tempted to say that the experiment of >>> branches (mostly) used by one committer is failing: branches make sense >>> only if a relevant part of the committer group is working on new stuff, not >>> just one. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >>> PS: a message to all: since I am not going to review each and every commit >>> done on this branch, I am going to vote -1 to the merging of the >>> portletWidget branch with the trunk until I will get enough guarantees from >>> the people that worked on it that the changes will be only related to the >>> original purpose of the branch. >>> >>> On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:10 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>> Author: erwan >>>> Date: Tue Oct 30 21:10:10 2012 >>>> New Revision: 1403870 >>>> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1403870&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> Applying a patch from Olivier Heintz on branch OFBIZ-4949 add a new >>>> attribute for for entity-engine-xml tag, put-other-field-to-null= true, if >>>> it exist at the beginning data file, all update will put to null all field >>>> not detail in this file >>>> >>>> Modified: >>>> >>>> ofbiz/branches/20120329_portletWidget/framework/entity/src/org/ofbiz/entity/util/EntitySaxReader.java >>> >> >>
