From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> > If you agree with me than let's commit to trunk first (if the objections from > committers are cleared, and I am not sure it is the case with Scott's one, > even if I didn't review this particular one) and remove it from the branch. Yes, I was just discussing about adding this to trunk (my +1) and then no needs to have it in the branch.
> But most importantly: are we (and are you) sure that this was the only patch > that was committed to the branch but it is not strictly related to the > portletWidget work? The fact that I am not sure about it is the main > motivation for my -1. I did not discuss this, as I did not review Erwan's work on the branch at all. I agree that there should be only stricly portletWidget work in this branch. I can't say +1 or -1 without review, so would be a 0 for me. Jacques > > Kind regards, > > Jacopo > > On Nov 17, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >> Hi Jacopo, >> >> I understand your formal concerns about being mixed with the branch and I >> agree with you. >> >> Apart that, I did not find anything against this patch >> http://ofbiz.markmail.org/search/?q=OFBIZ-4949 >> Only Scoot's comment about using fieldName="" which is cleary a less >> dangerous but also less powerfull solution for the requirement >> >> I don't see it as something dangerous since it would be only used by file >> and with a clear intention of the author. Do I miss something? Else would be >> a +1 for me to be directly in trunk >> >> Jacques >> >> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> >>> Just to clarify: I understand that this feature is useful for the >>> portletWidget implementation, but it is a *framework* feature that has to >>> be discussed/approved/committed to trunk before the portletWidget code can >>> use it, not vice versa. >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >>> On Nov 17, 2012, at 7:54 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> >>>> Erwan, >>>> >>>> could you please explain why this patch was committed to the portletWidget >>>> branch? There were some objections in Jira and in general there was no >>>> general approval for the inclusion. Also, it was a patch for the trunk, >>>> not the branch. >>>> >>>> This is not the way to go, the branch is not the playground of one >>>> committer and we cannot use it as an easy way (a lot of traffic, less >>>> reviews from committers) to see the code we like committed to trunk. If >>>> this is the general trend, I am tempted to say that the experiment of >>>> branches (mostly) used by one committer is failing: branches make sense >>>> only if a relevant part of the committer group is working on new stuff, >>>> not just one. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>>> PS: a message to all: since I am not going to review each and every commit >>>> done on this branch, I am going to vote -1 to the merging of the >>>> portletWidget branch with the trunk until I will get enough guarantees >>>> from the people that worked on it that the changes will be only related to >>>> the original purpose of the branch. >>>> >>>> On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:10 PM, er...@apache.org wrote: >>>> >>>>> Author: erwan >>>>> Date: Tue Oct 30 21:10:10 2012 >>>>> New Revision: 1403870 >>>>> >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1403870&view=rev >>>>> Log: >>>>> Applying a patch from Olivier Heintz on branch OFBIZ-4949 add a new >>>>> attribute for for entity-engine-xml tag, put-other-field-to-null= true, >>>>> if it exist at the beginning data file, all update will put to null all >>>>> field not detail in this file >>>>> >>>>> Modified: >>>>> >>>>> ofbiz/branches/20120329_portletWidget/framework/entity/src/org/ofbiz/entity/util/EntitySaxReader.java >>>> >>> >>> > >
