Le 23/10/2014 19:52, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
I don't think that I was implying that in the point that I was trying to make.
It is my theory that the way that this project deals with the releases and the trunk is directly related to the fact that most of the people
involved have customers for whom they fork the OFBiz system and deliver a forked version to which they apply patches and improvements when they get
applied to the trunk rather than using the official release as a base for their deliverables.
Actually I believe more and more OFBiz service providers rely on one of the
release branches, less and less the trunk HEAD.
But yes, there are also maybe few OFBiz service providers who start with a
static packaged releases for a client custom project.
Thought it's far easier to svn update a release branch where bug fixes are "routinely" backported by committers than to muck around with patches to
apply on a static packaged releases or anything else static (static meaning here with no connection with the OFBiz svn repo).
This is actually even true for anybody working from OFBiz.
Jacques
This may appear to work but I think that it hurts the project and probably has a negative effect on the overall profitability of the OFBiz market
served by these companies.
Ron
On 23/10/2014 12:33 PM, Pierre @GMail wrote:
The others participating in this project ( with and without customers are of no
importance?
Regards,
Pierre
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 okt. 2014, at 18:04, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
On 23/10/2014 11:33 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Le 23/10/2014 17:11, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
On 23/10/2014 10:39 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Le 23/10/2014 15:01, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
On Oct 23, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
wrote:
I agree about the idea, but this applies only to releases or checked out code. Because there are no ways for users to enable/disable a
component in demos, moreover demos are shared.
Could you please explain the above sentence? I don't understand the meaning of
it.
Your idea of disabling some specialpurpose component can't be applied in R13.07
demo until we decide which component should be disabled in trunk.
In the meantime we should keep the current state (ie all specialpurpose
components present in trunk should be available in R13.07 demo)
If they are in the demo they should be in the release.
Actually the specialpurpose components are in the R13.07 demos because they can be there. But they are not maintained in the R13.07 branch (but
ecommerce) only in trunk.
As you can guess, I am troubled about the relation between releases and the
trunk and demos in OFBiz.
Would you prefer to not have the specialpurpose components in R13.07 demo?
It is a bit odd and certainly goes against most product release strategies wherein the current release is the recommended download and carries
whatever warranty that the project offers in terms of testing and rapidity of bug fixes and the trunk is usually called something that
includes"nightly build" and "unstable" in the name and comes with no warranty and a warning about using it at your own risk.
Demos should be of the latest release and should be stable and have a fixed
functionality that can be documented in the wiki and marketing pages.
They are, just that they use the branch instead of the packaged releases. For R13.07 (current stable) there is an exception, because I thought
it was better to have the specialpurpose components available. This is what Jacopo contests
It could be maintained by the documentation team once it is set up since it should not require any technical skills to keep working and fed with
demo data.
If the developers need a test site based on the nightly build, they should be free to set up as many combinations of configurations as they
require and can support to be sure that the trunk still works but this should not be the public demo or even be called a "demo".
It's also, there are no official mention of the trunk demo, it's only a
developers thing.
Of course, this only works if a release is actually a Release and the team
stands behind it and uses it when establishing new customers.
We have no customers, only users
The PMC members have the customers to whom I was referring.
Jacques
Does anyone have an opinion about the gap between 13.07.01 and what the main SI
companies are getting from using the trunk instead.
Would a monthly release pattern reduce this gap to a point where it would be
possible to use the official Release as the actual release?
I hope it's more clear
Jacques
Thanks,
Jacopo
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
