On Nov 1, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Si,
Adam was a big contributor before you came along. At the time he
was considered a "trusted" source.
Yes and no. From where I'm sitting I'd say Si has done and continues
to do far more for OFBiz and every user of OFBiz than Adam or anyone
else aside from a small handful of people.
Adam has contributed some great stuff. We have him to thank for most
of the great caching stuff that is in the Entity Engine right now. I
personally also have him to thank for dozens of hours debugging and
fixing that stuff... so "trusted" may be going a little far. Adam is
certainly a contributor and has contributed great things, and I don't
think anyone can dispute that, but apples are apples and oranges are
oranges.
-David
Si Chen wrote:
Adam,
If there were some older patches that got missed two years ago,
maybe it's good to submit them again. We do have more committers
back then.
As to the general question of why patches don't get applied "by
those in charge," obviously we could all work harder for the good
of the project. However, please don't underestimate the amount
of time that it takes committers to review patches and test
them. If you or anybody feels that your patches are ignored,
please try to make it more clear (a) what your patch does--send
in screenshots, describe how it works, etc. and (b) above all,
write good, clean code that can just go in right away. There are
patches in jira which are themselves buggy, difficult to
understand, formatted incorrectly, or just don't even patch.
Also, it helps if you contribute on a somewhat regular basis so
that your patches are coming from a "trusted" source.
Last of all, it's not a matter of one person having to do all the
work at fixing something. The fact is, we're all working here
all the time to help make it better. However, it's not a good
practice to put half-finished things in the project, or break one
feature to make another work. That just creates more problems
for everybody. One of the stated policies for us the committers,
in fact, is not to commit things until they're reasonably
complete and functional--and we could all do better at it.
On Nov 1, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
Si Chen wrote:
I don't know about the particulars of the commons-fileupload
library,
but the problem with the bsf is that it interfered with the
currently
used jpublish. If you can supply an upgrade combination of bsf and
jpublish that still works, I think that should work for me (and
hopefully the other committers as well.) Otherwise, given how
little
the bsf library is actually used in the core ofbiz applications and
framework, it made little sense to break existing functionality
just to
get a newer version of it.
Yes, well, there is a patch from someone else from 2004(see the bug)
that fixes that. And that patch was never applied.
It's all well and good to provide patches, but if they never get
applied
by those in charge, it makes those that provide said patches
reluctant
to provide more in the future.
In general the goal of updating the libraries is a good one,
but in my
opinion it has to be well-tested so that the functionality of
the core
project is not compromised.
So, instead of going forward, fixing jpublish, you'd rather stay
back?
Why does one person have to do all the work at fixing something?
Best Regards,
Si
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
