You'll be the first? Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
> Op 14 nov. 2014 om 14:26 heeft Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> > het volgende geschreven: > > Can we start by separating the list into > Case 1 - Required. Were released in the past so have an implied warranty, > known to be used in production situations, were part of previous releases or > have current activity > Case 2 - Definitely don't need. Never finished. Tests that never worked. > Case 3 - Not sure. Can not remember who started this. > > This would add some specificity to the discussion and would allow people to > come forward with objections or offers of support. > > Can we start to develop a KB about what modules interfere with other modules, > where this shows up and how does one fix the problem if we need to run > multiple modules that normally interfere? > This would help determine the work required to support releasing them and > might lead to useful discussions about dynamic configuration tools that allow > conflicting modules to co-exist. > > Is there a wiki page for each of the case 1 modules? > > Do we have volunteers to create and maintain the wiki pages at least? > > Ron > > > >> On 14/11/2014 7:55 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> I think we need to be sure of what we are doing. >> >> 1st question, is why in the 1st place we did that? What pushed us to do so? >> >> Jacques >> >> Le 14/11/2014 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>> What is your preference? Would you like to see them all in the release >>> packages? Some of them only? Which ones? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: >>> >>>> This is the easiest part, I was more thinking about how much is downloaded >>>> by users. >>>> >>>> Anyway this was just an idea to help user to cope with missing >>>> specialpurpose components in released packages. >>>> >>>> Now a question comes to my mind, I don't clearly remember the reasons we >>>> decided to remove them. Why keeping them in the releases branches but not >>>> not in released packages is not clear to me. >>>> >>>> I believe Jacopo kind of answered at http://markmail.org/message/ >>>> w3xw6lipifdeks3z >>>> Actually we need to clarify 1st which components to keep active in release >>>> branches. For now it seems only ecommerce which is for me too restrictive. >>>> And then discuss about why not doing the same in released packages (sorry >>>> if I missed some arguments here). >>>> For that we need first to exactly know which components affect which ones. >>>> I believe at this stage we don't want to send any specialpurpose component >>>> to Attic, but this might be discussed also. >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> Le 13/11/2014 22:51, Pierre Smits a écrit : >>>> >>>> That is not difficult to assess. Do a download from trunk, and see how >>>>> many Mb's are transferred. Do a ./ant clean-all. Subsequently remove all >>>>> hidden files in .svn folders. Finally do a zip of the cleaned download and >>>>> compare the original amount of Mb's with the size of the zip file. That >>>>> difference is what is saved on storage and transfer cost of trunk code. >>>>> >>>>> Now multiply that with the number of branches you had in mind. >>>>> >>>>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >>>>> >>>>> Op 13 nov. 2014 om 22:32 heeft Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> het volgende geschreven: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 21:25, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it Apache's concern that while people may be free to choose, ASF >>>>>>> server capacity is not free nor unlimited? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I doubt that OFBiz really puts a big load on the ASF infrastructure but >>>>>>> users are not supposed to be downloading from the SVN. >>>>>>> They are supposed to get downloads from local mirrors. >>>>>> You said it :) At the moment I don't fear any overload on the svn server >>>>>> from users downloading from releases branches instead of released >>>>>> packages. >>>>>> OFBiz is not Tomcat ;) >>>>>> But I must say I have no measures, so you got a point until-we/if-we-can >>>>>> discover that. Because users can already do that, I think it's fair to >>>>>> use >>>>>> this method as long as it's reasonable. >>>>>> Of course, having that suggested in a TLP project could be viewed as an >>>>>> abuse from the Board, but let's be pragmatic, numbers should tell us the >>>>>> truth (if can get them) >>>>>> >>>>>> That may be the practical side of Apache's urging to get the releases >>>>>>> following their guidelines. >>>>>> Yes for Tomcat, HTTPD or such that's understandable. For OFBiz I "fear" >>>>>> it's not a problem. Can we discuss with the board in case, instead of >>>>>> hiding behind unknown numbers? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 13/11/2014 3:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 20:03, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does this solve ASF's issue about having users access the main >>>>>>>>> servers? >>>>>>>> I don't try to solve an issue, just to propose an alternative. It's a >>>>>>>> free user choice, but with more elements >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you put on the mirrors and how do you stop users from >>>>>>>>> accessing the development SVN which is ASF's concern? >>>>>>>> Things stay as they are, it's only that we inform our users than >>>>>>>> another way is possible and we give them enough elements of comparison >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> choice, it's called freedom >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 13/11/2014 1:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>> For the licence free issues (an other related stuff) we could put a >>>>>>>>>> disclaimer in the wiki page where all alternatives would be explained >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 12:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the past the ASF Board asked to the OFBiz PMC to fix the release >>>>>>>>>>> strategy of the project by providing officially voted release files >>>>>>>>>>> thru >>>>>>>>>>> the ASF mirrors: at that time we were pushing the users to get the >>>>>>>>>>> trunk. >>>>>>>>>>> Officially asking the user to use a release branch would be better >>>>>>>>>>> than the >>>>>>>>>>> trunk but would bring back similar concerns: an official vote is >>>>>>>>>>> required >>>>>>>>>>> to publish a product to the outside of the project in order to >>>>>>>>>>> guarantee >>>>>>>>>>> License free issues etc... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>> In a recent user ML threadhttp://markmail.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>> message/ivjocjr2ull7lwqe I >>>>>>>>>>>> suggested we could propose our users to use a release branch >>>>>>>>>>>> strategy >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than downloaded packages. >>>>>>>>>>>> And that we could expose this way of doing in our download page, >>>>>>>>>>>> or maybe >>>>>>>>>>>> better with a link to an explaining page (in details) in the wiki. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I know it's not the recommended way of doing at the ASF. But we >>>>>>>>>>>> all know >>>>>>>>>>>> the OFBiz differences when compared with other TLPs which are >>>>>>>>>>>> mostly libs, >>>>>>>>>>>> and even mostly jars. >>>>>>>>>>>> Most of us are actually using this way in their custom projects >>>>>>>>>>>> and I have >>>>>>>>>>>> a feeling it would not only help our users but also us to support >>>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques > > > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >
