Andrew Zeneski wrote: > I must admit this is very disappointing, and not a very "community" sort > of thing I would expect from someone who is an advocate for a > "community". Instead, this is a very tyrannical approach to the whole > thing and very disrespectful. So far the two people who have not seen > this being a great improvement is you and then once you spoke up Adrian > followed.
A community has guidelines and procedures to follow. A *worldwide* community has even more. There are long timelines that need to be followed, before large-scale things can be done. A week of time is *not* long enough. People need to have time to read and comprehend. Quite often, you'll get a bunch of people immediately reading some new proposed plan, in the first few days. But then it'll take a week or two before they really start to understand what it is all about. Consider how long you thought about this. I'm not talking about when you actually sat down, and said, well, today is the day I'm really going to do this. I'm talking about all the years you've had some sort of thought in the back of your head about what you want to do. > So, the revert was warranted because only you saw fit to revert it. > Maybe I should start looking over your code and reverting things I don't > agree with. That would surely drive a this community in the right > direction <sarcasm>. > > Let's look at the current tally: > > Anil, Scott and I have voiced approval for this proposal. > You and Adrian have voiced disapproval. > > How does 3:2 justify a automatic revert? I think what you have done > right here was very anti-community and EXTREMELY disrespectful to the > one person who has been working with you 8 years to bring this project > to where it is today. So, if your goal in reverting this was to piss me > off and ruin what little respect I have left for you, it worked. I haven't actually looked at the new security stuff, nor at the stuff done to example. If the stuff you have done does *not* modify any existing code(both security support classes, or examples, but you can add extra helper methods), then I see no reason to do a revert. I don't know if that's the case here. However, I do think that David reverted a bit too early. He did *not* give any warning, and just did it, and yes, that is a bit tyrannical. If this really is a community, then it needs to be community *all the time*. Have you considered doing a git or mercurial branch of all these changes? > I will personally revert the rest of the code over the next week. Please don't go that far. For instance, here's one thing that you and I have already discussed. You added an AbstractResolver class, which scanned the classpath, and loaded *every single org.ofbiz class*, just so you could find any class that happened to implement an interface or extend a base class. I then changed that code without telling you, to use the more efficient javax.imageio.spi.ServiceRegistry(java 1.5, in java 1.6 there is java.util.ServiceLoader). So, here are the issues with this particular exchange. One, the code you wrote was not available for public discussion *ahead* of time. If so, I would have commented about it(given some time, more than what was allowed), and the revision history may have been cleaner, by not having this class. Two, I should have asked/told you about it before doing it. However, I didn't know that there was some bold plan with this particular class, and just thought it was something that had already existing in ofbiz for a few weeks. I wasn't aware that this was part of some new, long-term change. Maybe that was because I didn't see any singleton message about it, nor any large thread about it, *before* I changed anything. The main reason I got back involved with OfBiz this time around was to start upgrading the ofbiz code base to java 1.5 features, namely generics, for-loops, auto-boxing, and other api usage; while doing so, I've also done code walk-throughs, to find other various anti-patterns or code duplication. I considered this particular change just another one of those.
