Ok, I arrived too late! :-) Jacopo
On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote: > >> Just trying to not be personal - there is no attack in any message that's >> been sent. I was asked not to refer to people directly - so I have done >> that. I'll resend the message removing these words as well so that hopeful >> we can stop talking about "feelings" and can get directly to talking about >> the code that we all want to improve. > > I don't think it is necessary to resend it, the content of the message was > clear enough regardless of the form you used. > > Jacopo > >> >> Cheers, >> Ruppert >> >> On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:05 AM, David E Jones wrote: >> >>> >>> If it has nothing to do with any person in particular, then there should be >>> no need to refer to a person, not even in a way that attempts to disguise >>> the fact that you are referring to a person like writing "Fellow >>> Committer". When you use those words you ARE in fact talking about a >>> person, and even if you don't say who it comes across as pretty clear that >>> you are thinking of a particular person, so it just sounds weird and >>> confusing in a sort of dehumanizing way. >>> >>> Isn't it possible to talk about the functionality and approach without >>> commenting on people? It's fine to say that Hans wrote this after so and so >>> wrote that and talk about the this and that and discuss what might be a >>> better approach, and I don't think it's necessary to comment on motives or >>> character or experience, whether a person is named or not. >>> >>> We're all people here, and I guess personally I'd rather be consider a >>> person by my given name rather than a "Fellow Committer". If I wanted to be >>> a number or a title, I'd be in a different line of work... >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:12 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote: >>> >>>> Fellow committer is in direct response to being clear that it doesn't >>>> matter who I'm talking to - Hans, Adam, Scott, David, etc. I'm not >>>> calling out a person in particular - only calling out the committer who >>>> instead of giving us an improved ebay component has decided to give >>>> everyone both a new ebay component and the job of figuring out what is up >>>> with these two strangely named, similarly scoped components. >>>> >>>> My recommendation - even at this point - is that we start to have a >>>> discussion about all of the things this new component does, and the people >>>> who are using the old one can put all of their feature coverage on the >>>> table - then we can discuss how to bring them together. This may be one >>>> ebay component which utilizes both XML for some things and the SDK for >>>> others - but without knowing the feature coverage - we're screwed. >>>> >>>> In this case - it matters very little to anyone what the technology choice >>>> ends up being - it's all about: >>>> >>>> 1. Making it easier for everyone who downloads OFBiz to know what to do >>>> with eBay >>>> -- These multi channels sales are more and more important each day in this >>>> economy. >>>> 2. Consolidating so that next time the SDK adds something that the XML >>>> does not, we can make good decisions about how to achieve the new features. >>>> >>>> Let's have this conversation - the committer of the new ebay component >>>> should provide a quick outline of what is being supported by all the >>>> functions that are newly implemented. This should be easy since the >>>> development was just done. Then the people who developed and utilize the >>>> current ebay component can put the features out on the table for >>>> comparison as well. Once we have that, we can easily do the necessary gap >>>> analysis and discussion about what technologies support what, etc, etc. >>>> >>>> it could be that XML supports everything that we want and this new SDK >>>> becomes something that the committer needs to remove and keep in his own >>>> repository if there's no business reason to have it but we won't know that >>>> until the gap in understanding is bridged. I hope that clarifies the >>>> stance and the use of the words "fellow committer" - not trying to be >>>> condescending - just really trying to avoid the consistent "personal >>>> attack" vibe around here since this has nothing to do with any person in >>>> particular. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ruppert >>>> >>>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >>>> >>>>> Tim Ruppert wrote: >>>>>> How can introducing another EBay implementation because a fellow >>>>>> committer is just too far down that road really ok for the rest of the >>>>>> project? Try explaining it to anyone trying to use the system why this >>>>>> was done - unfortunately we can't (don't know the original gap or what >>>>>> was solved by this new system) so we have basically forked the Ebay >>>>>> component because someone didn't want to do the proper analysis about >>>>>> even what they're getting with this new system. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's just unfortunate. Fellow committer - again thanks for trying to >>>>>> push things forward - you do that that after and we all appreciate it, >>>>>> but if you weren't in such a hurry sometimes, we'd have more substantive >>>>>> conversation that would lead to a better software product for you, your >>>>>> customers and the rest of the community. Instead, we've not only got a >>>>>> new Ebay component, but everyone also gets additional analysis to on top >>>>>> of trying to figure out Ebay. >>>>> >>>>> Fellow committer seems a bit condescending to me. Not trying to pick >>>>> a fight here(which others seem to think is all I enjoy doing), just >>>>> trying to help you word your responses better. If I'm wrong, then go >>>>> ahead and ignore me. >>>> >>> >> >
