That is a slippery slope to walk on and as soon as we begin backporting features we just end up with another trunk. Why not just wait until the features we deem important are ready before branching?
Regards Scott On 7/04/2010, at 6:06 PM, Anil Patel wrote: > I am yet to see contents of BranchReadMe.txt. In case it has some todo that > are not classified as bug fix but are instead classified as enhancements, I > will like it better if we officially allowed back porting such code to > release branch. > > Similarly, Jacques will like to get layered lookup part also included in > release branch. Lets say if we allowed back porting of that feature as well. > It will make him happy :) I also see it as major upgrade and will like to see > it in release. > > If community does not officially do it, then I will have to create vendor > branch in my private repository of community release branch anyway :) > > Other then this, Most of the code changes these days are in ofbiz trunk are > at framework level. I am interested in branch so I get isolation from > continues changes in framework. Most of those changes increase risk for > delivery of project. I found myself in tough spot because of those and > finally decide to not use trunk for projects. > > All these little things are my reason for pushing for release branch sooner > then later. > > Thanks and Regards > Anil Patel > HotWax Media Inc > Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz" > > On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> Well I don't see any problem with dropping it in right now then. The real >> question will be what do people want to be able to backport once the release >> branch is created. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 7/04/2010, at 5:35 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> The security redesign implementation itself is mostly finished. There are a >>> few TODOs and they can be found in the BranchReadMe.txt file. >>> >>> I recently synchronized the branch with the trunk and there is a remote >>> chance something in the design might have broken in the process. I need to >>> run some tests and review the code to see if that happened. >>> >>> The Example component has been switched over to the new design. >>> >>> There is a user login called "artifact-user" that demonstrates the new >>> design. That user login is restricted to using the Example component. >>> >>> If the branch was merged back to the trunk and the new security design was >>> enabled, the Example component would use the new design and the remaining >>> components would still use the current security design. The two can >>> co-exist. >>> >>> I imagine the process after that would be similar to when we introduced the >>> permission checking services - contributors can contribute code that >>> converts parts of the project over to the new security design. Conversion >>> involves removing hard-coded permission checks and creating seed data to >>> grant permission to component artifacts. >>> >>> As I mentioned before, switching a component over to the new design can >>> create some unexpected problems. That's because our existing code has >>> security holes in it, and the new design plugs those holes - making parts >>> of the component unreachable. In other words, parts of code that happily >>> allow you to do things you don't have permission to do will start to throw >>> exceptions in the new design. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> >>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>> Question: >>>> What exactly is the current status of the execution branch? What is it >>>> that needs to be done for it to be enabled in the trunk? >>>> I'm sorry if you feel you've already answered that question but I'm afraid >>>> it still isn't entirely clear to me. >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> On 7/04/2010, at 5:14 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> If we wait, then we're waiting for evaluation and testing of the branch. >>>>> I've done all I can do - the code is written, I suggested we do the merge >>>>> before the release branch, and I gave my reasons for suggesting it. >>>>> >>>>> At this point in time I have stepped out of the discussion (in a positive >>>>> way) to give others a chance to look at the design and the code and >>>>> decide for themselves if it should be included. In other words, I don't >>>>> want to be in a position where I have to convince the community what it >>>>> should do. If the design and the implementation are good, then there will >>>>> be no need to convince anyone, right? >>>>> >>>>> I'll answer questions about the executioncontext branch, and I'll >>>>> continue to work on it here and there when I have the time. If the >>>>> release branch is created without it, then that will be fine with me. >>>>> >>>>> :-) >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>> Considering we have yet to do an official release after 3.5 years and >>>>>> the lack of user interest in our release branches (partly because we >>>>>> recommend the trunk to everybody), I think it would be a waste of time >>>>>> and effort to create more than one release branch per year. If we want >>>>>> the security branch in there then lets wait, there is no good reason for >>>>>> us to release this month, it's just an arbitrary date. >>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>> On 7/04/2010, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>> I would suggest to: >>>>>>> 1) release 10.04 before the merge is done >>>>>>> 2) merge the code to the trunk, switch to it, fix any possible issue >>>>>>> 3) do another release (10.06?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know this is not inline with what we currently think a release should >>>>>>> be, but this is very inline with what the ASF practices and so I will >>>>>>> continue to insist with the release-often practice. :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would like to start bringing parts of the executioncontext20091231 >>>>>>>> branch into the trunk before we create the next release branch. The >>>>>>>> implementation of the new security design is not finished, but it will >>>>>>>> be disabled - so everything will still work the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My goal is to allow users of the 10.x release to plan for the >>>>>>>> forthcoming changes, and maybe have the conversion to the new design >>>>>>>> completed by the release that follows 10.x. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will wait a few days, and if there are no objections I will begin >>>>>>>> merging the design into the trunk. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
