On 6/04/2010, at 4:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > Scott Gray wrote: >> On 6/04/2010, at 3:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> Anil Patel wrote: >>>> I was thinking, Why not other way round. As I understand, we will not be >>>> able to use execution content features in other parts of Ofbiz in time for >>>> 10.4 release. If this is the case then additional code in release branch >>>> may add some new issues but will not add any benefits. Right? >>> Have you even looked at the design document or the code? >> I haven't, as long as there were two branches I've been staying well clear >> of them. >>>> So IMO we should wait till 10.04 release branch is created and merge >>>> executioncontext20091231 with trunk after 10.04 release branch is created. >>> Okay, let's wait and then we will add the new issues to the 11.x release. >>> Oops, we better not do that - let's hold off until 12.x... >>> >>> Do you see where this is going? We already have Webslinger in the project - >>> a feature that isn't finished and isn't used. Has that caused problems in >>> 9.04? >> I agree with Anil's sentiment, I just never got around to writing the email. >> What I am for at this point: >> - Anything that makes the user's life easier >> What I am against: >> - Any major changes to existing functionality that may just result in a >> whole lot of problems for early adopters and a whole lot of backporting >> I'm still not entirely clear on what you're trying to achieve by pushing >> non-functional code into the trunk prior to branching. > > The security redesign works, it's just disabled. It's disabled because there > are security holes in the existing code, and the new security design plugs > those holes - making parts of the project unreachable. > > Why not do it now? What set of circumstances would make it acceptable to > merge? > > The design has been discussed for nearly a year, the design document has been > up for almost as long, and the branch has been around since last August. > There has been plenty of time for code review and discussion.
Here's part of your original message: > The implementation of the new security design is not finished, but it will be > disabled - so everything will still work the same. The circumstances that would make it acceptable to me for merging would be a statement like this: "The implementation of the new security design is finished" How does David feel about your implementation? Has the problem of two competing designs been resolved? Regards Scott
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
