Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 22/06/2014 04:12, Ron Wheeler a écrit :

On 21/06/2014 3:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Le 21/06/2014 17:41, Ron Wheeler a écrit :

I understand the costs of open source but most are in a bit better shape.
We use around 50 OSS packages in our own software.


I guess most other projects have not the scope of an ERP. This is one of the 
problem with OFBiz documentation: where should it stop.
On the other hand I agree that documentations like setups and such need to up 
to date an as clear as possible.


This is where the PMC needs to settle on a scope for the docs.


This also makes me look at documentation very critically since I understand how 
the cost of using OSS depends to a great degree on the documentation.

It appears that there is a lot of documentation for OfBiz but it is in a lot of 
places and a lot has not been update as things change.


It's impossible to centralize others efforts... 

I would think that it is worthwhile to reach out to those who are writing 
external docs to find out why they are not contributing it.
Do they want more recognition or want to drive traffic to their sites?  Is 
there something that could be done to recognize contributions?


First we would need to be aware of them...



Do they feel that adding it to the OfBiz site would be presumptuous without 
"permission?  Perhaps they just need to be invited..


Read the top of the OFBiz (open) wiki about that



It's even difficult to be sure about our own documentation. I tend to think now that we should rather remove all what is wrong, or even deprecated, 
rather than trying to barely keep those alive.



I agree.
There has to be an appreciation of TCO for the project before a new document is 
started.



Unfortunately I ran into problems in the very first step where the installation docs were both wrong and outdated in ways that made me question 
the project management of the project. This has an impact on the long-term cost of going with OfBiz.


Yes, that should ever be reported like you did. In order for us to keep thing 
cleans, thanks for your effort!


I would recommend using JIRA issues be created to at least build a list of 
defects, if the person reporting them can't fix them.
However, there is no reason not to make corrections of things if you know the 
answer.


You must have access to the wiki

Jacques





I appreciate that this is a volunteer organization and that project management is not easy in this environment but that just makes it harder not 
optional.

I also appreciate that the development team includes important contributors for 
whom, English is not their first language.
It is easy for me to fix the problems that this causes, if the facts are 
correct and written down in some form.
It is easy to reword a paragraph but almost impossible to make up content that 
does not exist.

Je puis lire et parler français et écrire avec difficulté.


Je confirme, en effet !

Jacques


However, Google translate is still one of my best friends!
It also helps clean up English.
It is sometimes helpful to run an English paragraph through Google to see if it 
is sufficiently clear for Google to translate correctly.
Often a simple restructuring of the English to fix Google's French translation 
makes the paragraph much easier to read.

Ron

On 20/06/2014 4:23 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Le 16/06/2014 22:54, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no 
comments or questions about documentation.


I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was ready for 
use.

I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.

The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end processes 
reflect the framework rather than the use case.
Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of simple 
processes has been done correctly.

I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am 
starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.

The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on eCommerce.


I think the community is more diverse but "web companies focused on eCommerce" 
are more vocal indeed.


Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of OfBiz.


Few, not many, you can refer to the top of this page 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List


I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties, AR 
and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.

It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in explaining the 
framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
I do not need more overhead.


There is  a price to pay to be free 
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien (I guess you know how to us

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Ron Wheeler]

On 21/06/2014 3:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Le 21/06/2014 17:41, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
I understand the costs of open source but most are in a bit better 
shape.

We use around 50 OSS packages in our own software.


I guess most other projects have not the scope of an ERP. This is one 
of the problem with OFBiz documentation: where should it stop.
On the other hand I agree that documentations like setups and such 
need to up to date an as clear as possible.



This is where the PMC needs to settle on a scope for the docs.


This also makes me look at documentation very critically since I 
understand how the cost of using OSS depends to a great degree on the 
documentation.


It appears that there is a lot of documentation for OfBiz but it is 
in a lot of places and a lot has not been update as things change.


It's impossible to centralize others efforts... 
I would think that it is worthwhile to reach out to those who are 
writing external docs to find out why they are not contributing it.
Do they want more recognition or want to drive traffic to their sites?  
Is there something that could be done to recognize contributions?


Do they feel that adding it to the OfBiz site would be presumptuous 
without "permission?  Perhaps they just need to be invited..


It's even difficult to be sure about our own documentation. I tend to 
think now that we should rather remove all what is wrong, or even 
deprecated, rather than trying to barely keep those alive.



I agree.
There has to be an appreciation of TCO for the project before a new 
document is started.




Unfortunately I ran into problems in the very first step where the 
installation docs were both wrong and outdated in ways that made me 
question the project management of the project.  This has an impact 
on the long-term cost of going with OfBiz.


Yes, that should ever be reported like you did. In order for us to 
keep thing cleans, thanks for your effort!


I would recommend using JIRA issues be created to at least build a list 
of defects, if the person reporting them can't fix them.
However, there is no reason not to make corrections of things if you 
know the answer.




I appreciate that this is a volunteer organization and that project 
management is not easy in this environment but that just makes it 
harder not optional.
I also appreciate that the development team includes important 
contributors for whom, English is not their first language.
It is easy for me to fix the problems that this causes, if the facts 
are correct and written down in some form.
It is easy to reword a paragraph but almost impossible to make up 
content that does not exist.


Je puis lire et parler français et écrire avec difficulté.


Je confirme, en effet !

Jacques


However, Google translate is still one of my best friends!
It also helps clean up English.
It is sometimes helpful to run an English paragraph through Google to 
see if it is sufficiently clear for Google to translate correctly.
Often a simple restructuring of the English to fix Google's French 
translation makes the paragraph much easier to read.


Ron

On 20/06/2014 4:23 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Le 16/06/2014 22:54, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier 
exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with 
no comments or questions about documentation.


I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that 
was ready for use.


I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.

The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the 
end-to-end processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation 
of simple processes has been done correctly.


I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need 
but am starting to look at other alternatives since I have not 
found what I need.


The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on 
eCommerce.


I think the community is more diverse but "web companies focused on 
eCommerce" are more vocal indeed.


Many seem to be selling customization services or customized 
versions of OfBiz.


Few, not many, you can refer to the top of this page 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List 




I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an 
accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the 
parties, AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and 
delivery tracking.
It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in 
explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting 
to work.

I do not need more overhead.


There is  a price to pay to be free 
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien (I guess you know 
how to use Google translate)




If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing 
to invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations 
usin

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 21/06/2014 17:41, Ron Wheeler a écrit :

I understand the costs of open source but most are in a bit better shape.
We use around 50 OSS packages in our own software.


I guess most other projects have not the scope of an ERP. This is one of the 
problem with OFBiz documentation: where should it stop.
On the other hand I agree that documentations like setups and such need to up 
to date an as clear as possible.



This also makes me look at documentation very critically since I understand how 
the cost of using OSS depends to a great degree on the documentation.

It appears that there is a lot of documentation for OfBiz but it is in a lot of 
places and a lot has not been update as things change.


It's impossible to centralize others efforts... It's even difficult to be sure about our own documentation. I tend to think now that we should rather 
remove all what is wrong, or even deprecated, rather than trying to barely keep those alive.




Unfortunately I ran into problems in the very first step where the installation docs were both wrong and outdated in ways that made me question the 
project management of the project.  This has an impact on the long-term cost of going with OfBiz.


Yes, that should ever be reported like you did. In order for us to keep thing 
cleans, thanks for your effort!



I appreciate that this is a volunteer organization and that project management is not easy in this environment but that just makes it harder not 
optional.

I also appreciate that the development team includes important contributors for 
whom, English is not their first language.
It is easy for me to fix the problems that this causes, if the facts are 
correct and written down in some form.
It is easy to reword a paragraph but almost impossible to make up content that 
does not exist.

Je puis lire et parler français et écrire avec difficulté.


Je confirme, en effet !

Jacques


However, Google translate is still one of my best friends!
It also helps clean up English.
It is sometimes helpful to run an English paragraph through Google to see if it 
is sufficiently clear for Google to translate correctly.
Often a simple restructuring of the English to fix Google's French translation 
makes the paragraph much easier to read.

Ron

On 20/06/2014 4:23 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Le 16/06/2014 22:54, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no comments 
or questions about documentation.


I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was ready for 
use.

I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.

The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end processes 
reflect the framework rather than the use case.
Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of simple 
processes has been done correctly.

I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am 
starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.

The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on eCommerce.


I think the community is more diverse but "web companies focused on eCommerce" 
are more vocal indeed.


Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of OfBiz.


Few, not many, you can refer to the top of this page 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List


I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties, AR and 
AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.

It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in explaining the 
framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
I do not need more overhead.


There is  a price to pay to be free 
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien (I guess you know how to use 
Google translate)



If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using it who 
are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will never get to be a polished product.


I think Adrian already well explained this point. To add something: I'm currently working on a project where OFBiz is only seen as a services 
engine, most people using OFBiz don't care about its UI, because of what Adrian explained.


Jacques



I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software 
development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could help improve some of our processes.


As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team 
members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.


Probably just more ranting!


Ron

On 16/06/2014 

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Ron Wheeler]

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/High+Level+End-to-End+Processes
shows 1 Use Case as being documented

http://www.higherpass.com/apache/Tutorials/Configuring-Ofbiz-To-Use-A-Mysql-Database/
is a nice description of using MySQL that could be incorporated into the 
docs as an example of the process described in the text.

It shows the actual XML which is reassuring.



- What pieces of the on-line documentation are the responsibility of 
Apache? Core accounting - A/P, A/R, G/L? Other common functions?

Seems that you are focused on accounting ;)

These are areas where one would not expect a lot of customization since 
the processes are standard for most of the world.

There may be other areas where many people use OOB code and screens.
I was only suggesting a starting point, not a scope.


-  What is the impact of a release that changes a use case?
Very ambitious...

I disagree.
The person proposing to change the use case has to describe the change 
when submitting the patch/enhancement to the review process.
This could replace some of the verbage and screenshots that should be 
part of the review.
"Currently the system does X,Y and Z to process transaction type A. In 
step Y there is a problem with M. My enhancement modify the process so 
that the system does X, Y, and Y1 if this condition is met before moving 
to Z." The new process can become the brief use case for Transaction 
Type A with a little additional introductory text.
It also could be incorporated into a patch to the user manual without a 
huge effort.


Since there is currently only 1 use case for the whole system, it might 
encourage additional use cases to be developed even if they are not as 
extensive as the existing one.
I worry that the existing use case is perhaps too detailed to act as a 
model.

I do understand that there has to be a balance between value and TCO.

Ron


On 20/06/2014 5:48 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Le 17/06/2014 14:24, Ron Wheeler a écrit :

My 2 cents.

At least a policy and roadmap about how the OfBiz project will go 
from where it is now to where the PMC thinks that it should be.


- What is the overall strategy for documentation - intended wiki 
scope, on-line help, framework docs, end-user docs, use cases


The "problem" (and also the reason OFBiz exists) is we are a free 
community, so with sparse human resources .
So each time we try to plan something we don't enough interest or 
human resources to achieve it and then it's obsolete
Also I must say devs prefer to develops than documenting... since it's 
on their free time... I guess you get it...
When we get enough time we do some efforts and there are some good 
examples around




- What parts of the wiki are known to be wrong? List of known defects 
should be added to the JIRA.


This is where things get tricky, reorganising the open wiki take time 
and long enough to embrace all the documentation.

We rarely have this luxury :/



- What is the policy and priority for documenting use cases? Only 1 
documented at the moment.


Which one? :D


  What is the impact of a release that changes a use case?


Very ambitious...

  Can software be released if the use case documentation is made 
incorrect by the change?


I think Jacopo already replied



- What parallel documentation is available that could be used with 
the authors' permissions to fill in gaps?


This another part where we would need help, but as soon as people are 
able to manage by themselves, they forget it, will you do the same?


 The MySQL configuration article that I found would be a great 
addition to the installation docs.


Ref please?



- What pieces of the on-line documentation are the responsibility of 
Apache? Core accounting - A/P, A/R, G/L? Other common functions?


Seems that you are focused on accounting ;)

  What parts are deemed to be so implementation specific that they 
must be provided by the person implementing the system for a client?


Even in this case we can refer to them if they are of good quality.
This is for instance what I did for the subscriptions and a good 
article from Sumit Porwal at Amicontech


  What scaffolding should be provided to simplify the implementation 
where the on-line docs are installation specific.




It would be interesting to see what the OFBiz addons manager do

A public statement by the PMC pf its documentation policy would help 
new adopters to understand the situation.


This could be discussed here indeed

It would also provide a focus for people who can help with docs or 
provide chunks of documentation that they have in other places 
(books, customer installations, internal corporate docs).


It may be that some of the main players are making revenue from 
providing documentation and training that is predicated on the poor 
state of the current documentation and this may have to be a factor 
in the discussion.
Can ways be found to reward contributors who are adding their IP to 
the pool?


I don't think so. I lo

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Ron Wheeler]

I understand the costs of open source but most are in a bit better shape.
We use around 50 OSS packages in our own software.

This also makes me look at documentation very critically since I 
understand how the cost of using OSS depends to a great degree on the 
documentation.


It appears that there is a lot of documentation for OfBiz but it is in a 
lot of places and a lot has not been update as things change.


Unfortunately I ran into problems in the very first step where the 
installation docs were both wrong and outdated in ways that made me 
question the project management of the project.  This has an impact on 
the long-term cost of going with OfBiz.


I appreciate that this is a volunteer organization and that project 
management is not easy in this environment but that just makes it harder 
not optional.
I also appreciate that the development team includes important 
contributors for whom, English is not their first language.
It is easy for me to fix the problems that this causes, if the facts are 
correct and written down in some form.
It is easy to reword a paragraph but almost impossible to make up 
content that does not exist.


Je puis lire et parler français et écrire avec difficulté.
However, Google translate is still one of my best friends!
It also helps clean up English.
It is sometimes helpful to run an English paragraph through Google to 
see if it is sufficiently clear for Google to translate correctly.
Often a simple restructuring of the English to fix Google's French 
translation makes the paragraph much easier to read.


Ron

On 20/06/2014 4:23 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Le 16/06/2014 22:54, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier 
exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no 
comments or questions about documentation.


I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was 
ready for use.


I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.

The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end 
processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of 
simple processes has been done correctly.


I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but 
am starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what 
I need.


The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on 
eCommerce.


I think the community is more diverse but "web companies focused on 
eCommerce" are more vocal indeed.


Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions 
of OfBiz.


Few, not many, you can refer to the top of this page 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List



I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an 
accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the 
parties, AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery 
tracking.
It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in 
explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to 
work.

I do not need more overhead.


There is  a price to pay to be free 
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien (I guess you know how 
to use Google translate)




If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to 
invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations 
using it who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried 
that it will never get to be a polished product.


I think Adrian already well explained this point. To add something: 
I'm currently working on a project where OFBiz is only seen as a 
services engine, most people using OFBiz don't care about its UI, 
because of what Adrian explained.


Jacques



I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I 
had to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as 
software development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I 
think could help improve some of our processes.


As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we 
do go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other 
team members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.


Probably just more ranting!


Ron

On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum 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 
documentati

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 17/06/2014 14:24, Ron Wheeler a écrit :

My 2 cents.

At least a policy and roadmap about how the OfBiz project will go from where it 
is now to where the PMC thinks that it should be.

- What is the overall strategy for documentation - intended wiki scope, on-line 
help, framework docs, end-user docs, use cases


The "problem" (and also the reason OFBiz exists) is we are a free community, so 
with sparse human resources .
So each time we try to plan something we don't enough interest or human 
resources to achieve it and then it's obsolete
Also I must say devs prefer to develops than documenting... since it's on their 
free time... I guess you get it...
When we get enough time we do some efforts and there are some good examples 
around



- What parts of the wiki are known to be wrong? List of known defects should be 
added to the JIRA.


This is where things get tricky, reorganising the open wiki take time and long 
enough to embrace all the documentation.
We rarely have this luxury :/



- What is the policy and priority for documenting use cases? Only 1 documented 
at the moment.


Which one? :D


  What is the impact of a release that changes a use case?


Very ambitious...


  Can software be released if the use case documentation is made incorrect by 
the change?


I think Jacopo already replied



- What parallel documentation is available that could be used with the authors' 
permissions to fill in gaps?


This another part where we would need help, but as soon as people are able to 
manage by themselves, they forget it, will you do the same?


 The MySQL configuration article that I found would be a great addition to the 
installation docs.


Ref please?



- What pieces of the on-line documentation are the responsibility of Apache? 
Core accounting - A/P, A/R, G/L? Other common functions?


Seems that you are focused on accounting ;)


  What parts are deemed to be so implementation specific that they must be 
provided by the person implementing the system for a client?


Even in this case we can refer to them if they are of good quality.
This is for instance what I did for the subscriptions and a good article from 
Sumit Porwal at Amicontech


  What scaffolding should be provided to simplify the implementation where the 
on-line docs are installation specific.



It would be interesting to see what the OFBiz addons manager do


A public statement by the PMC pf its documentation policy would help new 
adopters to understand the situation.


This could be discussed here indeed

It would also provide a focus for people who can help with docs or provide chunks of documentation that they have in other places (books, customer 
installations, internal corporate docs).


It may be that some of the main players are making revenue from providing documentation and training that is predicated on the poor state of the 
current documentation and this may have to be a factor in the discussion.

Can ways be found to reward contributors who are adding their IP to the pool?


I don't think so. I long ago propose the reverse bounty idea, it did not happen http://markmail.org/message/meyd2cccngk4yqxm Maybe I did not push 
enough see http://markmail.org/message/hiwkf6gxocydfrqg


Jacques


Extracts from books link to the books? Links to companies that provide 
customization of on-line docs in return for scaffolding?

There may be more things that the PMC discovers once it decides to take some action on documentation but I think that these would be good starting 
points for the discussion.


Ron

On 17/06/2014 5:41 AM, Anil Patel wrote:

Pierre,
Please elaborate, may be I can help.

Are you saying PMC should set guidelines for documentation that should be 
delivered with each new feature or bug fix?

Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
COO
Hotwax Media Inc
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors

On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Pierre Smits  wrote:


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  
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 *
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...@

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 16/06/2014 22:54, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no comments 
or questions about documentation.


I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was ready for 
use.

I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.

The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end processes 
reflect the framework rather than the use case.
Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of simple 
processes has been done correctly.

I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am 
starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.

The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on eCommerce.


I think the community is more diverse but "web companies focused on eCommerce" 
are more vocal indeed.


Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of OfBiz.


Few, not many, you can refer to the top of this page 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List


I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties, AR and AP 
while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.

It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in explaining the 
framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
I do not need more overhead.


There is  a price to pay to be free 
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien (I guess you know how to use 
Google translate)



If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using it who 
are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will never get to be a polished product.


I think Adrian already well explained this point. To add something: I'm currently working on a project where OFBiz is only seen as a services engine, 
most people using OFBiz don't care about its UI, because of what Adrian explained.


Jacques



I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software 
development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could help improve some of our processes.


As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team members 
already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.


Probably just more ranting!


Ron

On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum 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" unle

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks for this contribution Taher :)

Jacques

Le 17/06/2014 16:36, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :

Hi Everyone,

You know I have been reading this discussion for a while brewing about how
the PMC is not taking the most favorable decisions in managing the code
base.

The way I personally learned ofbiz was 100% on my own, heck i did not even
write any questions in the mailing list. I read the books, went through the
wiki, did hundreds of searches, reverse engineered the code and got much
much better at the framework because of that and I think this framework was
designed from the beginning for developers, not end users.

OFBiz is limited in resources, this was very obvious from the beginning and
I personally say thank you profusely to all the people keeping it alive and
running.

I think the community (myself included) should contribute more to the
project in terms of JIRAs and their patches, test code, translate, push
ideas forward, document, etc ... before being critical of the PMC. From the
little work I did I remember the committers were helpful and quick to push
my patches.

just my 2 cents

Taher Alkhateeb
On Jun 17, 2014 4:58 PM, "Pierre Smits"  wrote:


Anil,

In stead of turning this around, maybe you should express what the
responsibility of the PMC is. So that newcomers like Ron can get a feel of
what to expect.

Regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com



--

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Anil K Patel]

Pierre,
I am here to learn and work with you. 

I am interested to work with you and do what I can. Will you be fine if I am 
working as a committer and PMC member and Not as representative of PMC? I mean, 
What I say or do is Not by any means voice of PMC. 

The way I understand my role, I am contributor to this project. 

Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
COO
Hotwax Media Inc
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors
Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 18, 2014, at 3:52 AM, Pierre Smits  wrote:
> 
> Anil,
> 
> I know the document.
> 
> Let's not try to play me or others for the fool. I will be the last one to
> decide how you and your peers should work in other to build/expand the
> community of this project and the quality of its products.
> 
> So, why don't you come up with a charter for your peers and yourself, put
> it on the website so that everybody can take notice of it and act
> accordingly. If you feel that would be beneficial to the project.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Hi Ron,

On Jun 16, 2014, at 5:15 PM, 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.
> 

Unfortunately our releases do not include documentation: the reason is that the 
amount and quality of documentation available is not good enough for being part 
of a release.

> Are the new features at least documented?

No, even if in this specific case we are delivering a bug fix release with no 
new features.

> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the 
> documentation?
> 

No, even if you can find some sparse information here:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Main+New+Features

and in Jira.

> 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.

I disagree that we should implement this strategy to improve the documentation: 
the OFBiz project doesn't release very often and in the past this was a problem 
for the ASF; now the situation is improved and we should go on with what we are 
doing; of course we should always try to improve our product (code and 
documentation).
But I completely agree with you that the community should focus on the creation 
and maintenance of good documentation; when this will happen we could bundle it 
with the releases or publish as a separate product ("The Apache OFBiz Manual" 
or similar).

> 
> 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?

We should really start this conversation in the dev list (rather than Jira or 
the PMC private list); some topics to discuss: how can we improve the existing 
documentation? (Confluence vs ASF CMS vs OFBiz website vs etc..) Who should 
maintain it? (Public wiki with moderators vs committers specialized in writing 
docs vs etc...) What kind of documentation is essential and what is mandatory? 
Who is the target audience of the documents (Tech teams interested in the 
customization of OFBiz vs End users vs ...) How to use Jira to automatically 
generate release notes?

Jacopo

> 
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> Jacopo
>> 
>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato 
>>  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
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> 

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Pierre Smits]

Anil,

I know the document.

Let's not try to play me or others for the fool. I will be the last one to
decide how you and your peers should work in other to build/expand the
community of this project and the quality of its products.

So, why don't you come up with a charter for your peers and yourself, put
it on the website so that everybody can take notice of it and act
accordingly. If you feel that would be beneficial to the project.

Regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Anil Patel]

Pierre,
I want to help.

Lets first get on same page for role of PMC, Below is the link to document that 
helps us all understand our role in project. 

http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles

I will spend sometime to understand Ron’s recommendations and figure out what I 
can do to help.

Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
COO
Hotwax Media Inc
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors

On Jun 17, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Pierre Smits  wrote:

> Anil,
> 
> In stead of turning this around, maybe you should express what the
> responsibility of the PMC is. So that newcomers like Ron can get a feel of
> what to expect.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Taher Alkhateeb]

Hi Everyone,

You know I have been reading this discussion for a while brewing about how
the PMC is not taking the most favorable decisions in managing the code
base.

The way I personally learned ofbiz was 100% on my own, heck i did not even
write any questions in the mailing list. I read the books, went through the
wiki, did hundreds of searches, reverse engineered the code and got much
much better at the framework because of that and I think this framework was
designed from the beginning for developers, not end users.

OFBiz is limited in resources, this was very obvious from the beginning and
I personally say thank you profusely to all the people keeping it alive and
running.

I think the community (myself included) should contribute more to the
project in terms of JIRAs and their patches, test code, translate, push
ideas forward, document, etc ... before being critical of the PMC. From the
little work I did I remember the committers were helpful and quick to push
my patches.

just my 2 cents

Taher Alkhateeb
On Jun 17, 2014 4:58 PM, "Pierre Smits"  wrote:

> Anil,
>
> In stead of turning this around, maybe you should express what the
> responsibility of the PMC is. So that newcomers like Ron can get a feel of
> what to expect.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Pierre Smits]

Anil,

In stead of turning this around, maybe you should express what the
responsibility of the PMC is. So that newcomers like Ron can get a feel of
what to expect.

Regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Ron Wheeler]

My 2 cents.

At least a policy and roadmap about how the OfBiz project will go from 
where it is now to where the PMC thinks that it should be.


- What is the overall strategy for documentation - intended wiki scope, 
on-line help, framework docs, end-user docs, use cases


- What parts of the wiki are known to be wrong? List of known defects 
should be added to the JIRA.


- What is the policy and priority for documenting use cases? Only 1 
documented at the moment.

  What is the impact of a release that changes a use case?
  Can software be released if the use case documentation is made 
incorrect by the change?


- What parallel documentation is available that could be used with the 
authors' permissions to fill in gaps?
 The MySQL configuration article that I found would be a great addition 
to the installation docs.


- What pieces of the on-line documentation are the responsibility of 
Apache? Core accounting - A/P, A/R, G/L? Other common functions?
  What parts are deemed to be so implementation specific that they must 
be provided by the person implementing the system for a client?
  What scaffolding should be provided to simplify the implementation 
where the on-line docs are installation specific.


A public statement by the PMC pf its documentation policy would help new 
adopters to understand the situation.
It would also provide a focus for people who can help with docs or 
provide chunks of documentation that they have in other places (books, 
customer installations, internal corporate docs).


It may be that some of the main players are making revenue from 
providing documentation and training that is predicated on the poor 
state of the current documentation and this may have to be a factor in 
the discussion.
Can ways be found to reward contributors who are adding their IP to the 
pool?
Extracts from books link to the books? Links to companies that provide 
customization of on-line docs in return for scaffolding?


There may be more things that the PMC discovers once it decides to take 
some action on documentation but I think that these would be good 
starting points for the discussion.


Ron

On 17/06/2014 5:41 AM, Anil Patel wrote:

Pierre,
Please elaborate, may be I can help.

Are you saying PMC should set guidelines for documentation that should be 
delivered with each new feature or bug fix?

Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
COO
Hotwax Media Inc
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors

On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Pierre Smits  wrote:


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  
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 *
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 ca

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Anil Patel]

Pierre,
Please elaborate, may be I can help. 

Are you saying PMC should set guidelines for documentation that should be 
delivered with each new feature or bug fix?

Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
COO
Hotwax Media Inc
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors

On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Pierre Smits  wrote:

> 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 
>>  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 *
>>> 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, O

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Jacques Le Roux]

Perfect answer for one of the assertion, maybe we should state that more 
obviously somewhere?

I will try to answer to other assertions later...

Jacques

Le 16/06/2014 23:17, Adrian Crum a écrit :

Your evaluation of the UI is correct. It is very generic and it is intended to 
demonstrate the data model and services. That is intentional.

Every business is different, so a typical deployment will consist of a custom UI tailored for the target business. So, you are correct that most 
members of the dev mailing list use OFBiz a framework to build custom products.


Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com

On 6/16/2014 1:54 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:

A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier
exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no
comments or questions about documentation.

I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was
ready for use.

I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.

The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end
processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of
simple processes has been done correctly.

I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am
starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.

The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on
eCommerce.
Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of
OfBiz.
I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an
accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties,
AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.
It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in
explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
I do not need more overhead.

If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to
invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using
it who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will
never get to be a polished product.

I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had
to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software
development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could
help improve some of our processes.

As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do
go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team
members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.

Probably just more ranting!


Ron

On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum 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

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Pierre Smits]

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 
>  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 *
>> 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
> 
>

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Adrian Crum]

Your evaluation of the UI is correct. It is very generic and it is 
intended to demonstrate the data model and services. That is intentional.


Every business is different, so a typical deployment will consist of a 
custom UI tailored for the target business. So, you are correct that 
most members of the dev mailing list use OFBiz a framework to build 
custom products.


Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com

On 6/16/2014 1:54 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:

A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier
exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no
comments or questions about documentation.

I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was
ready for use.

I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.

The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end
processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of
simple processes has been done correctly.

I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am
starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.

The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on
eCommerce.
Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of
OfBiz.
I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an
accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties,
AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.
It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in
explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
I do not need more overhead.

If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to
invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using
it who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will
never get to be a polished product.

I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had
to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software
development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could
help improve some of our processes.

As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do
go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team
members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.

Probably just more ranting!


Ron

On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum 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

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Adrian Crum]

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 *
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
 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 read

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Ron Wheeler]

A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier 
exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no 
comments or questions about documentation.


I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was 
ready for use.


I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.

The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end 
processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of 
simple processes has been done correctly.


I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am 
starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.


The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on 
eCommerce.
Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of 
OfBiz.
I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an 
accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties, 
AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.
It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in 
explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.

I do not need more overhead.

If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to 
invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using 
it who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will 
never get to be a polished product.


I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had 
to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software 
development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could 
help improve some of our processes.


As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do 
go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team 
members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.


Probably just more ranting!


Ron

On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum 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 lev

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Pierre Smits]

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 *
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
>>>  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 f

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Adrian Crum]

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
 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

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Ron Wheeler]

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
 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















--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Adrian Crum]

Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project. 
Therefore, there is no "industry standard."


Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using 
the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.


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
 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

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Ron Wheeler]

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
 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










--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Adrian Crum]

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
 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

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Ron Wheeler]

-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 
 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





--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Jacopo Cappellato]

+1

Jacopo

On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato 
 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

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Anahita Goljahani]

+1

Successfully tested both automated and manual tests.

Kind regards

Anahita





2014-06-09 16:09 GMT+02:00 Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com>:

> 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

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Anil Patel]

+1

Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
COO
Hotwax Media Inc
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors

On Jun 9, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato 
 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

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Ashish Vijaywargiya]

+1

--
Kind Regards,
Ashish Vijaywargiya



On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:39 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

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Medhat AbdelBadie]

+1

Regards,
Medhat


On Mon, 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

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Scott Gray]

+1

Regards
Scott

On 9 June 2014 15:09:02 BST, Jacopo Cappellato 
 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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03

[Jacques Le Roux]

Tests done OK
MD5 OK

+1

Jacques

Le 09/06/2014 16:09, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

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



--