It just seems rude to me, Hans comes to the list with a discussion, which is a good thing, and people start talking about reverts?
Regards Scott On 12/03/2010, at 7:33 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Simply because I read that in the document Bruno "sent" us and I was not > aware of all details. > So I though maybe some other commitets were not and a summary (on this > subject) could not hurt. > > Jacques > > From: "Scott Gray" <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> > Why would you even bring this up here? No one is talking about commits and > definitely no one is talking about reverts. > > Regards > Scott > > On 12/03/2010, at 2:53 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >> Anyway a sole -1 is enough for reverting code without explanations >> Needs 3 +1 (and more + than -) for a release. >> These are Apache rules (inherited from HTTPD project) as it's well explained >> in the release management document Bruno gave a link) >> >> Jacques >> >> From: "Bilgin Ibryam" <bibr...@gmail.com> >>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>> Hi Hans, >>>> >>>> I would recommend using the custRequestItem for the story, the >>>> implementation can be simple enough by using a service to create the >>>> header and item in a single call and a view entity could could them back >>>> to you as a single record. Conceptually what you really have is a >>>> customer request with a single item. >>>> >>>> I don't like the idea of modifying the data model when it is already quite >>>> capable of meeting your needs. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Scott >>>> >>> Agreed with Scott. Having two places for the same information will be >>> confusing/redundant and such a change should not go to ofbiz svn in that >>> case. >>> >>> Bilgin >> >> > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
