Having these extensions managed as add-on modules in a separate repository will be beneficial to the OFBiz trunk.
I mean that this way of managing extensions will probabily require improvements in the trunk itself to better manage extensions. (i.e. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3373) Having the extensions in the trunk could generate new dependency problems (like we have now with many of OFBiz components) and will not help setting in place a powerfull, community-wide method of managing extensions. My two cents, -Bruno 2010/7/15 BJ Freeman <[email protected]> > 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
