Well I am pulling my foot out of mouth a lot. seems there is a sequence to do this and I have documented them question is where to put them so someone else does not have to hunt them down and stumble like me.
Jonathon -- Improov sent the following on 11/27/2007 6:02 PM: > BJ has mentioned a few outstanding issues that could make the binary > release look incomplete. > > Frankly, OFBiz 4.0 is far from complete, but not because it doesn't have > anything more than half-baked features. It's because it has so many new > features slapped on that are not fully implemented yet. OFBiz 4.0 has > enough core features to be a fully functional release. > > While it is true that it would be good to remove those half-baked > features (red herrings), it would take way too much time. Also, the > effort would be destructive, not constructive. Would rather evolve OFBiz > 4.0 into the 4.x family to complete those half-baked features over time. > > Also true that OFBiz 4.0, with its numerous new features that are > half-baked, could make it look bad. If we already had *one* binary > release, we could still use that binary release to continue collecting > bug reports for the next release. But as it is now, we don't have a > single binary release for OFBiz 4.0. With a binary release, chances are > we will have more testers. > > Ok, I've done my bit for the "social aspect" of this binary release. > What do the others think? > > David is right about one thing, definitely. If there are only few of us > who respond to Jacques' social call for release discussion, then there > isn't enough homework done (outstanding issues review and such) for a > proper release. Any other issues we need to look at? > > (Thanks BJ, for highlighting the outstanding issues. Those fixes that > are easy to do would likely be thrown into the release). > > Jonathon > > Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> Jonathon, all, >> >> One day or another "we" will have to pass a vote about exposing >> officially the release as tarball and such. >> I guess one reason "we" don't do it as fast as you'd like is that it's >> a one man process (David has exposed number of other reasons, >> which you discussed below). >> As David briefly explained (he talked about keys) there is a release >> manager for each TLP (note the idea about technical and social >> ones) >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-manager. >> >> And releases must follow certains guidelines >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice. >> . I think we have achieved all the requirements regarding licence and >> such >> . There seems to be less and less bugs to back port and anyway this is >> not a criteria as explained in links above. >> . The documentation sounds pretty updated. >> >> But there is still some works to do : >> . Prepare release announcements and advertising >> . Create the tarballs (different types for Linux, Windows, etc.) as it >> was done here >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Incubating+4.0.0+Test+Snapshot+Release >> following >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-HowtodoOFBizReleaseRelatedTasks >> >> . Check all points in the 1st 2 links above >> . Launch an official vote (only PMC votes are binding) >> . Certainly some points I forgot... >> >> By chance "we" should have been thru all this during incubation (see >> snapshot release link above) >> >> So I think "we" are not so far from releasing. The main thing would be >> to have more testing for the current release4.0, and >> especially feedback from real production environments. Maybe we should >> ask for this last point on user ML ? >> >> Thanks >> >> Jacques >> >> >> De : "Jonathon -- Improov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to hear the 3 >>>>> letters "SVN" >>> >> when they attempt to download and test OFBiz. >>> >>> > There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the >>> nature of >>> > OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that >>> full-on >>> > customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it >>> possible >>> > to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been >>> > implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use. >>> >>> But isn't there value in mass market? The classic "funnel" structure? >>> >>> If 100 people knew about OFBiz, maybe 90 could get interested due to >>> the easy download and install >>> process. With SVN, maybe only 10! >>> >>> If 90 download OFBiz, maybe 9 will customize it themselves. The >>> others might be interested enough >>> to find help customizing it, if they see a polished or shrink-wrapped >>> product (no half-implemented >>> features that send them flying off cliff when they click on one). If >>> OFBiz has many "red screens >>> of death" (who coined this quote?) with most button clicks, maybe >>> none of those non-techies will >>> buy it. >>> >>> It's a numbers game. I don't think you need to pay much attention to >>> the non-techie testers. Well, >>> unless they submit bug reports, tons of it. But then, isn't that good >>> for stabilizing the release >>> branches of OFBiz? >>> >>> I was from sales and marketing before, so the funnel phenomenon is >>> deeply entrenched. 9 rejections >>> out of 10 is great result to me. That's why I'm still thinking that >>> hitting 100 folks with binary >>> release is still better than hitting 10 folks with SVN release. The >>> top of the funnel has to be large. >>> >>> > Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for >>> > users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project >>> forward. >>> >>> Then wouldn't we want more non-techie testers? The common complaint I >>> hear is that there just >>> isn't enough testers and bug reports for the release branch. >>> >>> > In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no >>> > company that owns or sponsors OFBiz. >>> >>> Some want to own forks. I can't help that. As I had always said, this >>> aspect of strategic planning >>> for open source project like OFBiz is beyond me. I can't comment on >>> this. >>> >>> > the thought of having thousands of users who don't want to >>> customize and >>> > don't contribute is REALLY scary. Imagine all of the complaints >>> and problems >>> > that the current community isn't big or experienced enough to >>> support for >>> > free in a good old community fashion... >>> >>> On other hand, what about the thought of having OFBiz 4.0 largely >>> untested, and hardly a candidate >>> for binary release even after a long year? Maybe a balance somewhere >>> is good? >>> >>> I don't think the community is inadequate to handle every and any bug >>> reports that can come in for >>> OFBiz. If you're worried about making a bad first impression because >>> we rolled out a largely >>> clunky release, you gotta know that first impression was already >>> formed even now. The fact that >>> there's no binary release already gave many folks a first impression. >>> It's always >>> work-in-progress, and pain (in form of insulting bug reports if need >>> be) is a good way to improve. >>> >>> I'll be upfront with you about my own struggles in this locale. To >>> me, OFBiz is fighting against >>> QuickBooks, NetBooks, NetSuite, even SAP. Time after time, my >>> propositions with OFBiz loses >>> against those polished products. The first impression was already >>> formed. (So I'm forced to >>> package OFBiz into a stable fork for them, unfortunately.) >>> >>> You got yourself, Al Byers, Andy, many others. And now even Adrian >>> Crumm is becoming an expert in >>> the Widget Engine. Sure, there is room for improvement everywhere. >>> But I really don't think the >>> community is inadequate in technical skill sets. >>> >>> > To put it in more concrete terms: if I have to spend 20 hours a week >>> > researching stuff so people don't commit things that are >>> inconsistent or >>> > difficult to manage or contradict or break things that exist, >>> where do I get >>> > time to actually do administrative tasks like creating a binary >>> release? >>> >>> I see. Is that why you think the community isn't ready for big-bang >>> exposure? >>> >>> Fine. I'll learn whatever necessary to create correct and streamlined >>> patches (I did). I'll read >>> whatever I'm told to. Be strict about the coding conventions. If it >>> will shave that time down from >>> 20 hours to 2, be strict about it. >>> >>> Problem: bad contributions that require administrative overhead to >>> screen and process >>> >>> Possible solution: certify contributors >>> >>> Sigh. Are we really that bad? >>> >>> > Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things >>> certainly >>> > change over time. >>> >>> Ok. I know, things will always change. >>> >>> > Just don't be too surprised if I pull out every gun I can think of >>> to argue >>> > against something that I think will be bad for the project, >>> especially if I >>> > am re-writing the thoughts. >>> >>> If you didn't, I'd think the project is dead. >>> >>> For what it's worth, seeing you manage the contributions going into >>> OFBiz is a needed sign for >>> many of us that things are moving along. >>> >>> Jonathon >>> >>> David E Jones wrote: >>>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: >>>> >>>>> The way we are doing it now, it's anal-retentive. It's like saying >>>>> "wait, boss, one more bugfix, just one more", and saying that for a >>>>> whole long year! I usually publish "release candidates" for my boss, >>>>> let him test it, let him scream the bug reports to me, then release >>>>> the next "release candidate" when he's gotten upset enough. >>>> Maybe the way you are doing it now... "we" is going a little far... >>>> >>>>> Ok, next question. So why not just let the whole world test the moving >>>>> OFBiz 4.0 branch? Why bother with publishing tarballs and release >>>>> candidates? Here's a simple analogy. Try telling our bosses "boss, can >>>>> you learn some SVN and test my bugfixes, so I don't have to prepare >>>>> tarballs for you?". Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to >>>>> hear the 3 letters "SVN" when they attempt to download and test OFBiz. >>>> There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the >>>> nature of >>>> OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on >>>> customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible >>>> to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been >>>> implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use. >>>> >>>> Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for >>>> users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward. >>>> In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no >>>> company that owns or sponsors OFBiz. >>>> >>>> So, we WANT people to use OFBiz from SVN. I don't know about the others >>>> who are involved more actively in managing and moderating OFBiz (ie the >>>> PMC members and committers), but for me the thought of having thousands >>>> of users who don't want to customize and don't contribute is REALLY >>>> scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems that the current >>>> community isn't big or experienced enough to support for free in a good >>>> old community fashion... >>>> >>>> Don't get me wrong, I ONLY wrote what and I wrote and don't read other >>>> stuff into it. This (a binary release) IS something that is >>>> necessary to >>>> help grow the project, but with limited resources and most of those >>>> going into trying to stabilize development and contributions because >>>> most contributors write WAY more than they read and research... we are >>>> where we are, and it is what it is. To put it in more concrete >>>> terms: if >>>> I have to spend 20 hours a week researching stuff so people don't >>>> commit >>>> things that are inconsistent or difficult to manage or contradict or >>>> break things that exist, where do I get time to actually do >>>> administrative tasks like creating a binary release? >>>> >>>>> Also, given that the 3rd-party binaries (more than 50% of OFBiz >>>>> download size is *not* OFBiz codes!) is in the SVN, it is in the OFBiz >>>>> PMC's interest to lessen the load on the SVN server wherever possible. >>>> Nice try. Machines are machines and are cheap and easy to manage. >>>> People >>>> are people and are expensive and difficult to manage. It's that simple. >>>> If it makes things more difficult for developers it will hamper or kill >>>> the project. >>>> >>>> Not gonna happen, especially if we want it to be possible to have >>>> enough >>>> resources to put together a binary release anytime soon... >>>> >>>>> Just my 2 cents. I'm feeling very embarrassed for beating this topic >>>>> so much to death by now. >>>> Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things >>>> certainly change over time. Just don't be too surprised if I pull out >>>> every gun I can think of to argue against something that I think >>>> will be >>>> bad for the project, especially if I am re-writing the thoughts. >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >> >> > > > >
