I believe Tim has been touched by Heathenism (don't give names) but others
don't :D
Jacques
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com>
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.
