Hans, How would you create such a branch, or what would that look like? Who would be able to commit to it?
-David On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > Shouldn't we do a proof of concept? > > I will volunteer to create and update a new branch for BJ to start and > everyone who would like to contribute. When the people on this branch > say they are ready we can judge what is there and/or provide suggestions > for enhancement. > > After general consensus the branch will be merged into the trunk. > > Any comments? > > Regards, > Hans > > > On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 18:21 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal >> >> BJ Freeman sent the following on 7/9/2010 11:07 PM: >>> I am writing a proposal for Contributors branch. >>> some of the points are: >>> 1)components not continued to be supported in the specialpurpose get >>> move to the contributors branch till interest is renewed. >>> this would simplify maintaining the trunk but allow people to pull it >>> down if they want to work on it. >>> 2)there is no guarantee of the ofbiz community support of the >>> contributions. >>> 3)people can test the contribution and may vote to include it in the trunk. >>> 4)it gives one place to make sure all contributions are integrated with >>> the latest trunk and each other without effecting the trunk. >>> >>> it puzzles me that it is ok open a branch to collorate, but when >>> opportunity to have a lot of contributions avalible that would spread >>> Ofbiz acceptance you bulk. under you logic that it can be done elsewhere >>> why not do the same for Hippo. >>> I would be interested in your reasons why besides it can be elsewhere. >>> >>> >>> >>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/9/2010 10:27 PM: >>>> What need would contributor branches meet that can't already be met >>>> using the likes of sourceforge, google code or github? >>>> >>>> Regarding your other statements, at some point Hans you are going to >>>> need to ask yourself why it is mostly only your commits that cause so >>>> much negative discussion. Everyone else seems to work together just >>>> fine for the most part. I'm not saying it's all your fault but you >>>> can't just blame everyone else for these problems and ignore your own >>>> contribution to them. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 10/07/2010, at 2:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have the same opinion as you BJ, even as a committer it is too much >>>>> problem contributing because of the number of technical people in the >>>>> PMC which often only judge on technical qualities and making the system >>>>> technically as difficult as possible. >>>>> >>>>> The current discussion (not really sure if it is one) between Adrian and >>>>> me is a good example. >>>>> >>>>> I think it would be a good idea to have contributor branches. Other PMC >>>>> members who would support this? >>>>> >>>>> To be honest i think that you should try to become a committer, i know >>>>> why you did not accept in the past, but please reconsider. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Hans >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 18:33 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>> my goal has always been to have this ofbiz do this. it has never >>>>>> been my >>>>>> intent to have a seperate ofbiz. Nor am I promoting mine. >>>>>> my problem up to now has been acceptance and resources. >>>>>> I see the winds changing on acceptance and I have gotten the resources. >>>>>> if you note I suggest years ago to have contributor branches. >>>>>> Had that happened I would have contributed to it instead of create >>>>>> mine. >>>>>> I see the equivalent of contributor branch happening more like the >>>>>> Current Hippo branch. >>>>>> so if someone wants to open a branch I can just submit to, it would be >>>>>> faster, however i am happy to provide Jiras. >>>>>> so if the Jiras I put patches in are accepted then the ofbiz will work >>>>>> the same as the one I have. >>>>>> Note my first major move to accomplish this >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3852 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/9/2010 5:18 PM: >>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 1:06 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a product is more of a marketing item >>>>>>>> a part is a description of a function >>>>>>>> they vary for engineering and manufacturing. Engineering does not >>>>>>>> assign a commercial product to the part where manufacture may list >>>>>>>> many actual purchase parts that will never be sold individually. >>>>>>>> I see in the model book the one I implemented is the alternative >>>>>>>> and more extensive model. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Congratulations, where can I download a copy of this BJBiz? Please >>>>>>> try and keep in mind that we are discussing OFBiz in this mailing >>>>>>> list, not your derivative of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/5/2010 5:53 PM: >>>>>>>>> In OFBiz a Part is a Product, so what is your point? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/07/2010, at 12:16 PM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I wish to be able to have our engineers link plans to parts >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ========================= >>>>>>>>>> BJ Freeman<http://bjfreeman.elance.com> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BTW your quoting is terrible, I never made the statement below >>>>>>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/5/2010 5:02 PM: >>>>>>>>>>> I wish to be able to have our engineers link plans to parts >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz >>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak >>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. >>>>> >>>> >>> > > -- > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. >
