I don't have a problem with this going into 4.0 Regards Scott
On 15/06/07, Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jacopo, You are absolutely right. OFBIZ-1079 is still a work in progress and that is clearly a new feature - no argument there. Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding on the list, I'm only referring to OFBIZ-1069 - not any of the other improvements I've mentioned in the past. -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 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> > >
