Regards Scott
On 18/09/2009, at 9:13 PM, David E Jones wrote:
Thanks Jacopo, well put. That's exactly what I'm for. -David On Sep 18, 2009, at 2:58 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:My vote would be to NOT enforce any rule on this; I don't see any problems in commit logs with:"... Thanks to <person> (<company name>)" or similar.If we will ever see people abusing with this (I don't think is happening, happened or will ever happen) we can address this specifically.Jacopo On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Scott Gray wrote:I'm in no hurry to make any rules, it just seems more complicated to me to allow company attribution than to disallow it, we've gotten by fine all these years without it so why start?Regards Scott On 18/09/2009, at 7:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:We already have so many "rules", why is everyone in such a hurry to make more?-David On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:56 AM, Scott Gray wrote:I think Ashish was pointing out that if a contributor supplies a patch then they could request that their company is attributed in the commit log. A committer would then be required to do so in order to be fair to the contributor since committers are allowed to attribute their own company for their commits.Also does the committer also get attribution for reviewing and committing community contributions? "New feature XYZ contributed by Mr. ABC funded by DEF Corp. Review and commit funded by GHI Corp.Regards Scott On 18/09/2009, at 7:29 PM, David E Jones wrote:Who said anything about requiring the company name? IMO both not allowing and requiring company names are not worth trying to force other people to do. In other words, my vote is no company name police, either way.-David On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:+1 for Scott's comment. Consider the case:Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on the trunk and instead of that I start attaching the patch on JIRA. Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the fastest picker) or some other committer to commit my code.So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:"Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The new feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will be sponsored by HotWax media." - Isn't it funny? On the first time committer won't mind writing other company name but if this is the case that will happen on regular basis then he may(chances are more) start thinking that I am committing the code and also mentioning the name of other company. He may come into dilemma to decide whether this is right or not to mention other company name. Result can be the reduction in the contribution?If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if committer miss putting company name then I or someone else can ask to put the company name.I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit logs. So here is the *BIG* -1 for putting company name in commit logs. Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client and your client agrees to see his/ her company name then committer can mention the name of client company in the commit log.-- Ashish Scott Gray wrote:Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it every in log which is what could very well happen once the ball gets rolling. I'm not saying it's the end of the world, I'm just saying I would have preferred to keep things the way they are now.Regards Scott On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that isn't what is happening here.In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If tastefully done they are effective to. If done in a tacky or flamboyant way, chances are people won't appreciate it much.-David On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other hand, I can see a potential for the commit logs being turned into commercials:"XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open For Business solution provider. Contact us at..."or something like that. -Adrian David E Jones wrote:Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any problem with this. Attribution to persons is important, and I'd say even mandatory, and by the pattern established with the individual and company contributor license agreements I have no issue with attribution to employers of contributors if the individual was paid to create something. Attribution is one of the motives people and companies have for working on this software and contributing to the project, so I would NEVER complain because a person took credit for work they did or a company took credit for work they sponsored.-David On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:Hi Hans,I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by attributing a commit to your company within the commit message, OFBiz is business software and of course a large majority of the commits are funded by various companies.Personally I don't think this a practice that we would want to see continued.Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, hans...@apache.org wrote:Author: hansbak Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009 New Revision: 816083 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev Log:added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed data only. After the required data is created with this component it is possible to enter a salesorder and quickship it and create an invoice successfully. The 'setup' component will only show in the tab selection if there is no accounting organization. Check the ofbiz document for more info or look in the file applications/ commonext/documents/Setup.xml. Created and sponsored by Antwebsystems. Programmed by employee Tukkata
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
