Jacopo,
I'm relaxed and positive. I'm just being what Americans call "snarky." Hence
the ;)
Here's another one in case anyone missed it
;)
-Adrian
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian,
in my opinion OFBIZ-1069 could go in the release; OFBIZ-1079 should not.
However I really think that it is very important to maintain a relaxed,
positive and constructive attitude between us especially when we
disagree or have different opinion.
Jacopo
Adrian Crum wrote:
David E Jones wrote:
The primary goal of a release branch is to stabilize current
functionality.
Generally a very important part of that is to not introduce new
functionality that might cause new bugs. That doesn't mean everything
one might want or that might be implied in the data model or other
parts of the system will work as expected, it just means that
everything that IS implemented will function.
Some things are difficult to decide on, but remember the first
priority is stabilization.
-David
In other words, it's okay for the system to function incorrectly, as
long as it consistently functions incorrectly.
;)
If you prefer to keep the Workeffort calendar broken, that's fine with
me. When new users ask why release version 4 has only 29 days in
November, I can point them to this discussion and let them know that
November 30th was a new feature that didn't make it into the release.
Adrian Crum wrote:
Moving this to a new thread. I apologize for the threadjack Scott.
I'm puzzled. A Workeffort screen displays a calendar incorrectly and
I submit a patch that fixes it. How is that a new feature?
It sounds to me like bug fixes are okay as long as they don't
introduce new code. What if fixing a bug requires new code?
On 15/06/07, Tim Ruppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Then I guess it depends on whether or not the rest of the fix is
indeed
> fixing a bug or new features :)
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
> From my perspective, having two 4ths and only 29 days in November
is a
> bug.
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>
> I don't know... that's a fairly big change and in a very real way
> supporting DST changes is a new feature...
> That's my opinion anyway. Doesn't this also depend on a fair
amount of
> other new functionality?
> -David
> Adrian Crum wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> This isn't already committed, but it needs to go into both -
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1069
>
> -Adrian
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'll be reviewing the last fortnight's trunk commits for merging
back to
> the
> release branch tonight, so if anyone knows of any trunk commits that
> should
> be merged it would be great if you could post them here.
>
> Thanks
> Scott
>
>
>
>
