Go on all you like. The simple point is that you need to tone it down if you want others to be willing to contribute. This is a community-driven project, and you are not the boss. If you want code to be a certain way, then by all means step up and make it that way. Why do you expect others to do thing the way you think they should be done?
Heck, I'm even gun-shy these days and I'm really not interested in developing and contributing much because of the total lack of constructive review and feedback, with this sort of vitriol and nonsense in its place. I even have a couple of offers to do things in the framework, but I've recommended to the client that they take a different course because "doing it right" would involve way too much community push back, and I'm just not that into it. I really don't want to write code according to the rules of Adam Heath or anyone else, especially since there is so much poorly designed and organized stuff constantly going into OFBiz that these "rules" seem to universally miss the point and just throw effort where it won't do ANY good. But don't worry Adam, you're far from the only one and I don't want to miscommunicate here and state or imply that it is you fault, it is most certainly not. A few days ago I let the PMC know that I'm stepping down as the chair and intend to no longer be as active in the project. There are many reasons for that, but I won't say that this sort of stuff isn't one of them. This kind of stuff just isn't worth it to me personally. I don't know how to solve these problems with community interactions, or by another way of looking at it I don't know what we can do to work together better. I've tried a few times to defend people being attacked, or try to point out hopefully more effective ways of doing things. Every time I just get personally attacked in response. I know that doing this is not the role of the PMC Chair, but I've been trying anyway and obviously completely failing and my efforts seem to be doing more harm than good, or that is the feedback I've been seeing. It's great that OFBiz has become what it has in spite of my inability to foster growth and collaboration in the community, and I hope that it will continue to grow and do so because of the nature of the project and community. I really have hope that it will, in spite of what I'm about to write... For years I've been talking up this approach of doing things in a community-driven way and the great things that can happen, and have happened with OFBiz, because of the approach. Over the last few months I guess I've lost my faith in it. It's interesting that OFBiz was born in one recession, but the project doesn't seem to be weathering this one very well. I hope things improve and that the community will strengthen again, because it's the ONLY that the project will progress in any good way. I imagine most of us are under considerably more stress than has been the case in recent years, and it's a shame to see things going this way. Still, my income is almost entirely based on OFBiz and I'm glad of that... it's still a better place to be and better software to be working with than anything else I'm aware of. -David P.S. I apologize for my tone in my previous response, I should not have sunk so low. I won't do so in the future. I do respect you Adam, and continue to send prospects your way (or to Brainfood) when clients ask about recommendations, because I know you guys do great work over there. On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:55 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > Scott Gray wrote: >> Wow, how about we all calm it down a few levels, despite the biblical >> references I don't think the end is nigh quite just yet and it's safe to >> relax a little bit. >> >> One downside of buildbot is that everybody is acutely aware of any failures >> that occur regardless of how quickly they are fixed, but hopefully that will >> promote better practices without the need for this sort of intervention and >> the subsequent storm that seems to ensue. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 2/02/2010, at 10:22 PM, David E Jones wrote: >> >>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:53 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >>> >>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>> Author: hansbak >>>>>>> Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010 >>>>>>> New Revision: 905878 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev >>>>>>> Log: >>>>>>> fix build error reported by buildbot >>>>>> How did you not discover this before you commited it? Did you not do >>>>>> a clean-all/run-install/run-tests? For such a large commit, this kind >>>>>> of error is inexcusable. >>>>> Come now Cardinal Heath, some level of forgiveness can surely be found in >>>>> even the coldest of hearts, and do we not all hope that even the most >>>>> depraved and ignorant among us is deserving of some level of empathy? >>>> Seriously? Really? You are suggesting that renaming a >>>> component(which is essentially what this is), shouldn't do a standard >>>> clean/test run? >>> That's absolutely ridiculous. I neither said nor implied anything of the >>> sort. Get your head out of... > > Um, you saying I should forgive this error implies that the error > isn't that big a deal, and that it was ok that it happened, and we > should just pat Hans on the back, and put on our big red clown smiles. > >>>> There were several other things I could have commentted on, code >>>> quality, design, whatever. Those would have been opinions, when you >>>> really got down to it. I didn't. I commented on procedure. >>> Great, so you chose a personal attack over reviewing things that might >>> actually be helpful. If that's the high road I'll stick to the low one. > > (pre-script; this paragraph was written last, after everything else)Do > you not pay attention? I try to not do personal attacks, and word > things such that they apply to anyone who may be happening to read it. > This applies to the time when the email is written, and years later > when someone does a google search and finds the mail, or, when someone > reads a changelog at some point in the future. I do this consciously. > I have done it repeatedly on this list. I have explained it as well. > But this was one case where I did not do this, and again, did it on > purpose. I'm quite polite during these discussions. Yet, when I > point out a very obvious problem, one that does get repeated by Hans, > instead of saying that Hans made a mistake, you do a personal attack > on me. Again, and I really really really hate saying this, but you > need to take your head of out of your ass(damn it, I wish I hadn't had > to say that; sometimes, a slap in the face is the only way to get some > people to shut the hell up, and think about what they are saying, and > how it is coming across). You, David, came across *entirely* to strong. > > How could I comment on things I know nothing about? I don't use any > ebay code in any customer deployment. But the procedure I commented > on is followed by everyone. I reference the doc I posted a while > back, about being courteous to others, trying to do no harm. > > I choose to comment on what I know, and that is a simple > clean-all/compile phase. > > Yes, I could have gone into his large commit, looking over stylistic > issues; ie, maybe there is a spot that UtilValidate.isEmpty could be > used, or maybe there are tabs instead of spaces, or a way to use an > enhanced for loop. That's not the point. The point was that this > commit broke ofbiz for others who are doing work on it. Stylistic > issues with the code don't affect anyone else, other than the original > author. Those can be discussed later. Broken compiles are just > unforgivable. Outside of the occasional issue(which, as I have > maintained, depends on the sizze of the change). > > For reference, I just did a revert(using git, love this tool), and it > did fail. Yes, this may not have been detected if you were doing a > commit from a dirty checkout. But I do pristine testing before > committing, can't others, esp. for larger commits. > > Wholesale moving of entire code subdirectories is an extremely > destabilising event, and certain steps should be taken to limit how > much extra work others in the project have to do. > >>>> I admit I haven't been perfect with commits. I have even committed >>>> stuff that has failed to compile. I admit I'm not perfect. However, >>>> the probability of that decreases with the size of the commit/change. >>> I was going to stop above, but sorry, this is bull shit and a totally >>> ridiculous idea. In fact, haven't you even caused problems BECAUSE of >>> trying stick to the evidently sanctified approach of splitting your commits >>> into tiny chunks? >>> >>> What's more... do you test after each commit to make sure that interim >>> updates won't be broken? How can you possibly say that this will cause less >>> problems. > > Um, very often I do. For any large commit set where I know it could > cause problems with external entities, I do interim testing at each > commit level, clean-all/run-install/run-tests. This is why I love > git, because it makes this job simpler for me. > > I don't do it for all my flood commits, as generally the earlier > commits in a series are not changing code, just adding new functions. > > Even before I started using git, even before I ever got involved in > ofbiz(this is going back 5+ years), I would do a bunch of work on some > project, then flood commit manually, copying my svn checkout, cleaning > it so it was completely pristine, and manually retyping whatever > feature I had done into separate commits. I did this often when I was > working on dpkg(yes, the dpkg in debian). >
