On Nov 27, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jacopo, > > I looked a bit back. Even if it's not clearly related I trace this back to > the slim-down effort. We can forget it since nobody never complained > (pfew...). > > Then you proposed to move some component from specialpurpose to extras. > As you said, not every people were happy with it (at least Pierre and in a > less measure I) > I then suggested some components to keep markmail.org/message/4camcprzximkcftc > > <<assetmaint > ecommerce > example* > pos > maybe myportal? > projectmgr > scrum > and maybe webpos?>> > > In a very recent thread http://markmail.org/message/ctusiepnuciofc32 I > suggested to associate people with components I don't like the idea of associating code to persons: this is not in line with the spirit of the project in the ASF. Once the code has been contributed, it is owned by the community and not by a group of persons. As regards the list of components, I am having an hard time at following what you would like to release or not: could you please (changing the subject would be great) provide the list of components that you think are worth of being part of the release and why? Others will comment with their own. In this way we will understand how many volunteers we have to maintain them, make sure the vulnerabilities are fixed, that they comply the analysis performed by tools like RAT etc... Just one (important) clarification: we are talking about the components that you would like to have in the releases, not the component that should go to attic. One final point: do we all agree that all the components that either override the web applications of other components or modify the entities defined by other components or override service definitions in order to provide more specialized features should be set as "disabled" by default? In my opinion this is an important point because otherwise, even when you install OFBiz in production (ant load-seed) you will get a data model with a specialized set of fields. Special components and special behavior can be released but should be disabled by default. Best regards, Jacopo > <<project manager (Pierre Smits?) > > scrum (Hans?) > > examples and ext (at least me) > > myportal (French people use portals, not sure for myportal?) >>> > When I look now at my 1st list, obviously I can also support the POS even if > I have less interest in it now. > > Pierre at http://markmail.org/message/n23oyye2i24kqzpg suggested > HHFacility, ASSETMAINT, CMSSITE, PROJECTMGR, MYPORTAL, SCRUM, etc. > I don't like the etc. ;) but I can agree to add > HHFacility and CMSSITE to my list > > Also in this list birt is missing, clearly at least Chatree has an interest > in it and knows how to maintain it. > I don't know if Anil or/and Adrian have still an interest in ASSETMAINT but > anyway it seems it's worth to keep it. > HHFacility does not need much work to maintain > For CMSSITE I'm unsure, but it's interesting for the online help (too bad BJ > is no longer with us) > BTWcmssite/cms/APACHE_OFBIZ_HTML > <https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/cmssite/cms/APACHE_OFBIZ_HTML> is no > longer working (was still in August in trunk demo) I will investigate why > > At http://markmail.org/message/5dbs3g3vbdfo7dlx I wrote > <<A moment I even thought about Attic for some unmaintained components > (ebaystore?, googlebase?, googlecheckout?, jetty?, webpos?, ...), WHO > cares?>> > > But this is not a good idea. Obviously we have some responsabilities with our > users. > Now I still wonder about who is really using appserver, ebaystore, > googlebase, googlecheckou, oagis and jetty components... > > This is what I can say so far > > HTH > > Jacques > > > Le 14/11/2014 14:20, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >> It was a long discussion that was done in the public lists and I wouldn't >> want to rehash it (you have been part of it for sure): there were concerns >> and discussions about duplicated jars, poor quality code, stale code, files >> with questionable licenses etc... on the other side there were people >> worried about removing features from the system etc... >> I think it would be better to address each component individually and, >> since you would like to "cope with missing specialpurpose components in >> released packages", this is why I am asking you what are the components >> that should be included in the trunk/release branch/releases. >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >> [email protected]> 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 < >>>> [email protected]> 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 < >>>>>> >>>>>>> [email protected]> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >
