Adrian, My apologies, but I must have missed your answer to the question stated below.
Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which the PMC agrees? Regard, Pierre Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > Op 16 jun. 2014 om 23:11 heeft Adrian Crum > <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> het volgende geschreven: > > I answered the questions. Why don't you take some time and actually read my > replies? > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > >> On 6/16/2014 1:20 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: >> Adrian, >> >> Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying to answer >> the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members can >> indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the >> product.... >> >> Regards, >> >> Pierre Smits >> >> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >> Based Manufacturing, Professional >> Services and Retail & Trade >> http://www.orrtiz.com >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum < >> adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are >>> you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards? >>> >>> >>> Adrian Crum >>> Sandglass Software >>> www.sandglass-software.com >>> >>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project. >>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard." >>>> >>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that >>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they >>>> are not paid? >>>> >>>> >>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using >>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list. >>>>> >>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape. >>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to >>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config >>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else >>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer. >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum >>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation? >>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what >>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)? >>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a >>>>>> draft Release Note. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be >>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a >>>>>> version 12.x.x release? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that >>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, >>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line >>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to >>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and >>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" >>>>>>>> (on-line >>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything >>>>>>>> when you click on it). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented? >>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the >>>>>>>> documentation? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a >>>>>>>> release, mandatory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of >>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which >>>>>>>> the PMC agrees? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato >>>>>>>>> <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major >>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede >>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (everyone else) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and are: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 >>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys >>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: >>>>>>>>>> hashes >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see >>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Vote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read >>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url: >>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively >>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the >>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most >>>>>>>>>> cases >>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >>>>>>>>>> manager." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>
