From: "Ean Schuessler" <[email protected]> > Maybe more of this work needs to be done in feature branches? You can make > the argument that SVN (at least as far as I know) encourages an "everything > goes in the central repository" work flow because it doesn't have the GIT > distributed workflow. We certainly don't want to discourage new and > adventurous development because that is the road to "fossilization" but, on > the other hand, we definitely don't want every wild idea just going into > upstream and turning it into a big mess. In the GIT workflow, these changes > would be made in someone's fork and they would issue a pull request. > Reasonable criticisms about style or architecture would be addressed and then > the work would be pulled in as a whole when it reaches a certain level of > quality.
You sometimes have to take the risk. At some points you must take decisions and go ahead, being in a branches or a patch in Git or Svn or whatnot, I'm sure you know that better than I... > This is an important topic. Its basically the same issue that provoked David > to go create the Moqui framework. Evolving the platform while keeping > architectural coherency and stability is not easy. I do think we need to > pursue this "app store" concept and find a way for "plugins" to be a major > part of how we add features. Adding these features in needs to be as easy as > clearing the cache in Webtools so that implementors do not feel like they are > a "second class citizen" just because their code isn't in the core upstream > repository. If we figured that out properly we might want to jettison A LOT > more stuff from core. This is what Neogia addons are all about, if I understoof it well Jacques > ----- "Scott Gray" wrote: >> One thing I'm starting to get tired of is contributors (and committers) >> beginning major works without a thorough discussion about the suitability of >> the work for OFBiz before starting. I find it frustrating that reviewers are >> then forced to review under some sort of urgency because it is "ready to >> commit" and also made to feel like the contributor's time has been wasted if >> there are any major issues/disagreements with the design decisions made in >> the work. >> In regards to Jacques, I also find it frustrating that he encourages and >> actively participates in this behavior without actually really performing >> much in the way of design review other than a generic "does it seem like a >> good feature?" test. Don't get me wrong, encouraging contributors to >> contribute is a great thing and Jacques does an amazing job interacting with >> the community as a whole but whenever a major work is undertaken without >> prior discussion then the contributor is taking a big gamble and they should >> be made well aware of that before starting. > > -- > Ean Schuessler, CTO > [email protected] > 214-720-0700 x 315 > Brainfood, Inc. > http://www.brainfood.com
