Thanks. over on the User ML it was suggested I use the wiki. so have created a User Document space there.
Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/28/2007 1:15 AM: > BJ, > > If I understand you well, Jira seems the best place > > Jacques > > De : "BJ Freeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 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 >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> > > >
