Ean,
Thank you for the explanation.
Where I work there would be no need to create/maintain a separate fork. I have a few enhancements to
OFBiz that I maintain for my employer - I'm not the type of developer who would create a cottage
business based on OFBiz.
I was given commit priviledge to the applications folder with the understanding that I could use
that priviledge to continue enhancing the OFBiz UI. Problem is, some of the UI stuff is in the
framework folder - that's why I asked for additional commit priviledges.
-Adrian
Ean Schuessler wrote:
On Friday 31 August 2007 09:56:19 am Adrian Crum wrote:
No I haven't.
Define "rouge committless forks" please.
I mean forks in the tradition of the Linux kernel. GIT was designed around a
development model where there are many paths of simultaneous development
going on, each with their own version history. None of those repositories
are, functionally, a "master" repository. They are all peers and the role of
Linus' repository is strictly a matter of convention and reputation.
I think following a similar model would be beneficial for OFBiz. There are a
lot of reasons to constrain the number of primary committers and most serious
users are going to need to maintain their own private "fork". At this point I
mostly regard the Apache repository as the Hotwax version of OFBiz. The other
major version at this point being the Open Source Strategies OpenTaps
repository.
We started out using SVK here in order to create our own local revision
history but still find that tool limiting. GIT and Mercurial are the leaders
for that style of development and GIT would seem to have the most intensive
community around it.
