Hi Pierre, Jacopo's first words in that email were "In my opinion". That's an extremely important point.
There are no guidelines because each PMC member is free to vote however they feel would best serve the project. Any of us could provide our own personal guidelines but they would still just be personal opinions. Regards Scott On 17/10/2014, at 10:55 pm, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jacopo, > > I your posting regarding the vote to keep the PROJECTMGR in releases (see > here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/maha6pwlatlxbb64 ) you addressed > aspects as ' the right attitude' and 'trust them' in respect to inviting > committers. > > In the committers role and responsibilities page (see here: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities > ) we can read about the responsibilities. But words like attitude and trust > are not not mentioned. > > Can you, as the PMC Chair, explain what the vision and expectations are > regarding this right attitude and trust? > > Regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jacopo Cappellato < > jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote: > >> In my opinion we should avoid reconsidering the idea of creating >> committers with limited access; instead I would prefer to invite committers >> when we trust them as individuals, when they have demonstrated the right >> attitude and skills to work in our community etc... and demonstrate enough >> technical skills for the work they have to do; even if it is limited to a >> subset of the OFBiz codebase they will get full access to the repos but of >> course they will limit their field of action to the area they know, without >> requiring us to enforce commit rights limitations. As I said this can only >> work if we trust them 100% as persons at first. >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Oct 2, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> >> wrote: >> >>> That's an interesting idea. >>> >>> Now it also means more administration and we are already a bit sparse on >> the volunteering front. >>> >>> A simpler solution the OFBiz project used was to allow write access to >> only parts of the repo. >>> This was before the Apache era. We gave up this way of doing because it >> was not the Apache way. >>> >>> I have not read it all yet but for instance I read in >> https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html >>> <<There may be extraordinary cases where we want limited work-related >> commit access. This will be resolved during the vote discussion. >> >>> >>> I don't know how technically this is possible in OFBiz trunk and >> branches, apart maybe asking the infra team? Which would most probably >> faces a veto... >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> Le 01/10/2014 16:46, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>> The sub-project is a very useful Apache tool for helping projects grow. >>>> http://db.apache.org/newproject.html is interesting reading. >>>> http://ant.apache.org/antlibs/ very minimal description about Ant >> sub-projects but we all use their work. >>>> >> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Close-of-Apache-Lucene-s-Open-Relevance-sub-project-td4141160.html >> a note about the official closure of a sub-project - very clear about why >> and what closure means. >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Ivy another popular sub-project. >> Description implies that it started in incubation and graduated to a >> top-level package and then became a sub-project of Ant. >>>> >> http://icodebythesea.blogspot.ca/2009/04/apache-servicemix-kernel-subproject.html >> is an example of a sub-project moving between two top-level projects. >>>> >>>> The sub-project structure allows for more specialization within the >> project resources so that people who are wizards with databases, kernels, >> etc get to worry about data access, performance, scalability, reliability, >> security while others who have more domain interest get to worry about >> features, usability, graphic design, workflow, reporting without getting in >> each other's hair. >>>> >>>> It also ensures a clearer demarcation between framework, core ERP and >> modules. >>>> I suspect that it would clean up project communication since people >> could subscribe to the sub-project lists that pertained to their interests. >>>> >>>> It might be easier for the existing community to accept new committers >> if the new people were part of a sub-project and were not committing to the >> particular codebase (framework, core, etc.) that the current committers are >> working on. >>>> >>>> It probably would help clarify the documentation since there would be a >> much clearer separation of framework from core from modules since each >> sub-project would have its own section in the project documentation. >>>> Each sub-project would have a much better defined target audience so >> writing docs would be a bit simpler and the language and terminology could >> be more relevant to the target audience. >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01/10/2014 10:17 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: >>>>> Ron, >>>>> >>>>> In the past there was a WIKI page decribing who was interested and who >> was willing to work on what. I don't know whether that page still exists. >>>>> >>>>> In the past we also had a system of having committers dedicated and >> committed to a subset of the trunk. This should still be feasible. But for >> that you need more committers. And to get more committers, this project >> needs to solicit and accept more. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>> >>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Ron Wheeler < >> rwhee...@artifact-software.com <mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A defined method of deciding what moves from the trunk to a >>>>> release would solve this. >>>>> Back to my previous comment about 1 person to test and 1 person to >>>>> fix bugs (could be the same person I suppose) would be a good >>>>> starting minimum. >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> On 01/10/2014 2:56 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The excuse of using PROJECTMgr in an older branch (12.x, the >>>>> latest stable >>>>> release) and testing it against trunk and therefor not >>>>> including it in a >>>>> release of a newer branch, is a lame one. >>>>> >>>>> We are diligent about this, meaning that we do follow up >>>>> against any >>>>> potential new release branch in order to be able to migrate to >>>>> the newer >>>>> branch when there is something released. >>>>> >>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>> >>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://ORRTIZ.COM> <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Jacopo Cappellato < >>>>> jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com >>>>> <mailto:jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The fact that someone is using it in an older branch and >>>>> testing it in >>>>> trunk is not enough to guarantee it works well with 13.07; >>>>> the trunk and >>>>> 13.07 are very different codebases. >>>>> Additionally, the "projectmgr" component has 0 unit tests; >>>>> I am not sure >>>>> about about its stability, but for example comments in >>>>> code like the >>>>> following don't make me feel super confident: >>>>> >>>>> <!-- temporary disabled because it caused a db lock with the >>>>> checkProjectMembership in projectpermission services --> >>>>> >>>>> One more point to note: since the component has not been >>>>> in the 13.07 >>>>> branch, it didn't undergo the 1-year long stabilization >>>>> phase where only >>>>> bug-fixes are backported: for example, one month ago, with >>>>> revision >>>>> 1618313, it was modified by a big commit to replace a >>>>> series of Freemarker >>>>> built-ins operation that we decided to not backport to >>>>> 13.07 but only keep >>>>> in the trunk. >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 30, 2014, at 11:19 PM, Ron Wheeler >>>>> <rwhee...@artifact-software.com >>>>> <mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So, as far as is known from Pierre's testing, there is >>>>> no work required >>>>> >>>>> to "stabilize and bug fix" the module prior to including >>>>> it in 13.07.01? >>>>> >>>>> Anyone else have any comments on the work required to >>>>> include it in >>>>> >>>>> 13.07.01? >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> On 30/09/2014 5:13 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ron, All, >>>>> >>>>> We use the latest released branch, meaning 12.x. >>>>> We don't expose our >>>>> customers to an unstable unreleased branch, that >>>>> is still undergoing >>>>> significant changes. >>>>> >>>>> But, we test our solutions against trunk. This >>>>> enables us to identify >>>>> issues and register them in JIRA. And supply >>>>> patches when workload >>>>> >>>>> allows >>>>> >>>>> it. >>>>> >>>>> So yes, PROJECTMGR, SCRUM, etc work also in r13.x >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>> >>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://ORRTIZ.COM> >>>>> <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Ron Wheeler < >>>>> rwhee...@artifact-software.com >>>>> <mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Are you using it with a 12.04 or 13.xx? >>>>> What work is required to get it into 13.07? >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> On 30/09/2014 3:06 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I also have a vested interest in >>>>> keeping this (PROJECTMGR) in the >>>>> releases. It is part of our ORRTIZ:COM >>>>> solution portfolio for our >>>>> customers >>>>> and we use it internally. And I have >>>>> contributed to the improvement >>>>> >>>>> of the >>>>> >>>>> component. >>>>> >>>>> We, at ORRTIZ:COM, even use an extension >>>>> to the code base to ensure >>>>> >>>>> that >>>>> >>>>> it >>>>> also works for fixed price and internal >>>>> projects. This extension >>>>> >>>>> includes >>>>> >>>>> generating the gl transactions regarding >>>>> the cost price of each hour >>>>> registered regarding a project. >>>>> >>>>> We also use the LDAP component to connect >>>>> to our directory server >>>>> >>>>> (Apache >>>>> >>>>> Directory Server). >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>> >>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://ORRTIZ.COM> >>>>> <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Ron Wheeler >>>>> >>>>> <rwheeler@artifact-software. >>>>> >>>>> com >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> It would be for me since it is one of >>>>> the components that I want to >>>>> >>>>> use. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the more knowledgeable people >>>>> might want to share a bit more >>>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> the background of the feature. >>>>> Is it in 12.xx.xx? >>>>> >>>>> Is it currently in the 13.07 branch >>>>> and therefor currently part of >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> 13.07 versions that people have put in >>>>> production or is it just in >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> trunk that people are putting into >>>>> production? >>>>> >>>>> What are the issues that need to be >>>>> addressed before it is >>>>> >>>>> "stabilized >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> bug fixed"? >>>>> Do any of these issues pose a >>>>> significant risk to the stability of >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> rest of the functionality? >>>>> >>>>> Is anyone using it in production? What >>>>> are their opinions of the >>>>> >>>>> state of >>>>> >>>>> the code and the degree of risk? >>>>> >>>>> Is anyone prepared to take on the task >>>>> of getting it "stabilized and >>>>> >>>>> bug >>>>> >>>>> fixed" to a point where it can be >>>>> safely included? >>>>> What is the estimate of the minimum >>>>> effort required? >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 30/09/2014 9:58 AM, Mike wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Why not deploy it as another >>>>> hot-deploy component? Is it >>>>> >>>>> considered a >>>>> >>>>> "core" ERP component? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:59 AM, >>>>> Pierre Smits < >>>>> >>>>> pierre.sm...@gmail.com <mailto:pierre.sm...@gmail.com>> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo, >>>>> >>>>> Back then there were already >>>>> strong objections to excluding >>>>> >>>>> components >>>>> >>>>> from >>>>> the release. I recall that >>>>> Hans also wanted to keep the >> SCRUM >>>>> >>>>> component >>>>> >>>>> in >>>>> the release, as well as there >>>>> were proponents for BIRT and >> other >>>>> components. >>>>> >>>>> These are good additions to >>>>> the feature set of OFBiz and >>>>> may be in >>>>> >>>>> use >>>>> >>>>> already by community members. >>>>> It would be best that you >>>>> solicit the >>>>> advice >>>>> of the entire community before >>>>> a decision on excluding >> components >>>>> >>>>> from >>>>> >>>>> any >>>>> release is taken. This affects >>>>> more participants in this >> project >>>>> >>>>> than >>>>> >>>>> just >>>>> you and the committers. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Pierre Smits >>>>> >>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM >>>>> <http://ORRTIZ.COM> >>>>> <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>>> Based Manufacturing, >> Professional >>>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:49 >>>>> AM, Jacopo Cappellato < >>>>> jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com >>>>> <mailto:jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ok, got it. >>>>> >>>>> The release process that >>>>> the OFBiz community is >>>>> following is >>>>> >>>>> based on >>>>> >>>>> a >>>>> feature freeze phase, that >>>>> for the 13.07 branch >>>>> started more than >>>>> >>>>> one >>>>> >>>>> year >>>>> >>>>> ago, during which only bug >>>>> fixes are backported. >>>>> >>>>> This is done in order to >>>>> stabilize the branch >>>>> before an official >>>>> release >>>>> is done. Since the >>>>> "projectmgr" component has >>>>> never been part of >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> 13.07 >>>>> >>>>> branch then it may be unsafe >>>>> to include it now just before >> the >>>>> >>>>> release >>>>> >>>>> is >>>>> issued. It would be better >>>>> to discuss its inclusion >>>>> in the >>>>> >>>>> upcoming >>>>> >>>>> new >>>>> release branch where it >>>>> could be stabilized and >>>>> bug fixed. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- Ron Wheeler >>>>> President >>>>> Artifact Software Inc >>>>> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com >>>>> <mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com> >>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler >>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
