On Sep 17, 2010, at 12:50 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > --- On Thu, 9/16/10, David E Jones <d...@me.com> wrote: >> On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >> >>> On 09/16/2010 01:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <adri...@hlmksw.com> >>>>>> This description of events isn't entirely >> true. >>>>>> >>>>>> David didn't reject Andrew's design, the >> community in general felt >>>>>> excluded from the design process. David >> simply asked that we discuss >>>>>> the design before code was committed. >>>>> >>>>> Yes exactly, thanks for clarifying Adrian, I >> knew I had left some points >>>>> behind >>>>> >>>>>> The security redesign was the outcome of >> that discussion. As far as I >>>>>> know, David and I agreed on the final >> design, but interest in it fell >>>>>> off. I ended up being the only person >> working on it. Since then, David >>>>>> has included the security redesign in his >> new project. >>>>> >>>>> I tought there were some stumbling blocks, >> notably when merging your >>>>> works. >>>> >>>> We only disagreed on the workflow. David wanted to >> commit all the >>>> changes at once and I wanted to commit them a >> little at a time. >>> >>> Completely brand new code that doesn't touch anything >> else *at all* can be committed as a single large >> chunk. But if you need to alter a bunch of other stuff >> scattered all over, separate commits are better. It >> makes it easier to verify correctness, and helps in 4 years >> when you are trying to figure out why something is broken. >> >> I agree, it is WAY better to have hundreds of small commits >> with questionable code state in between them. >> >> Again though, Adrian misrepresented what I wanted to do, >> namely implement the ExecutionContext in a branch and once >> it is complete and the rest of the framework is cleaned up >> merge that back into the trunk. I suppose you could say the >> point of the branch was an attempt to collaborate with >> others, and on that account it worked out beautifully... >> I've given up entirely on these things in the OFBiz >> Framework and instead decided a separate project was the >> only viable way to see it through. > > So, should Moqui be renamed to "One Man's Spite"? >
I suppose one man's spite is another man's way of moving forward and improving things. -David
