Inlne:
David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 10:39 AM:
This looks like more of a separate repository than a branch of OFBiz.
yes and no.
since it would usually not be merged back to ofbiz, yes, being able to
sync trunk to branch that all in the branch work with no.
First off, the term "branch" just doesn't apply. A branch of a source
repository is
effectively a copy of the repo that can be changed separately
that was the intention.
and is meant to eventually be merged back into the trunk.
If a branch is not meant to be merged back into the trunk, it is a fork.
So version 4.0 9.04, 10.4 will be merged back to the trunk?
or are they now Forks?
What you're describing isn't even a fork as it doesn't sound like it would be a
copy of OFBiz that is changed separately,
matter of perspective
but rather a repository for add-on modules.
of course they are addons.
for instance the manufacturing, travel and Eccommerce would be defined
as addon, Just as the finacial Services, telecommunication,
Proffiessional services, Insurance and HealthCare are in the vol II of
data model book.
so why limit it to just those vertical markets. there are many.
By having the trunk brought into the Contributors "section" they would
could access it and pull down everything at once to work with or use.
Also, it sounds like it would best be done outside of the ASF, especially
the reason to keep it was the ability to move the truck into it.
if you don't want a vote where PMC votes are binding... that's all there
is at the ASF.
clarification it was meant to communicate the popular vote is meant as
an indicatore, but the PMC would be the deciding vote.
For those interested, why not just create a sourceforge or google code project
and share commit access with others who are interested? There is nothing that
says OFBiz add-on modules have to be part of the project, or that people can't
create separate projects to do such things. If various people want to work
together to do so, from the community spirit perspective... all the better!
it also gives ofbiz a greater appeal to the users that may use ofbiz in
a vertical market.
and it does not stop any current developer from learning and offering
these.
-David
On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:11 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal
David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 9:03 AM:
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.
