Thanks for taking the time to clarify Gil, I was in a hurry and did not put
enough information, let me clarify my point.
I only wanted to speak about the tool used to create, maintain and share extensions. For the moment the "OFBiz-France solution" (actually more
Nereides one) is based on the patch command and the addons manager.
The idea here was, if ever the OFBiz project would use Git instead of Svn, maybe the OFBiz-France solution could be based on Github and maintained as
described below by David. Still a lot of of speculations, but better to think ahead even if nothing happens ;)
Jacques
Le 21/04/2015 15:09, Gil portenseigne a écrit :
Hi all,
First to clarify things, OFBiz-france association goal is to promote Apache OFBiz into french speaking audience by giving references (information,
classifications and links) to extensions (documentations, addons, patchs or packaged solution), maybe hosting some high quality not contributable
extensions.
Helping extensions' owner improving their quality to convert its into OFBiz contribution if possible, or referencing them for easy sharing of
classified solutions.
Creating a tool integrated into Apache OFBiz too manage and share anyone devs by implementing a new extension manager
(http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/goxbqcgurpoy2yfp?q=ofbiz-fr without success for now :) )
Nereide Leverage of addon solutions, like you introduce is just an illustration of this process. Nereide as a member of the association will give as
example some instance of extensions, hoping that other contribution and contributor will come (and be welcome).
I think that this git solution of *creating a consortium [...]* is quite different (even if i do not understand all the ins and out of it) and might
be more comparable to ofbizextra effort, to give the ability for everyone to develop and share using a dedicated tool.
And because everything which is committed into Apache OFBiz project has to be validated, and development within Integrators Projects do not have the
same rythm/pace, ofbizextra was created to store and share unfinished/specific/not ready quality wise devs and this has to be out of Apache OFBiz.
My personal opinion is (i'm not a git user), that SVN seems quite sufficient for Apache OFBiz needs. I remind me reading that there is already a git
repository of the trunk branch so, if true, it can be used by contributor too make their devs using it. I'm not relevent evaluating git usage, but i
do not feel a real problem using SVN.
In every case, contribution will have to be given within Jira to get into the
project.
Best Regards
Gil
On 21/04/2015 12:19, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Le 21/04/2015 12:02, David E. Jones a écrit :
On 20 Apr 2015, at 23:21, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoting:
We are also prepared to be assertive regarding this situation. If the
project
does not move to GIT then Brainfood is willing to participate in a
consortium of
organizations that will peer with each other to share updates to the master
branch for their local OFBiz repository. Such an arrangement will,
effectively,
result in a distributed master repository image.
Thanks Ean for the position of *Brainfood* in this position. It comes
across as 'Do it our way, or else'. You are free to make such statements
and when followed through there will be consequences. For all participating
in this project. One I can see standing out clearly is: no more
participation in/contribution from the employees of Brainfood and from the
other companies in that consortium back into the project.
That's not at all what I get from Ean's comments. The magic of a community-driven project is that people can collaborate on anything they want,
within the scope of the main project or as side projects. If the main project doesn't provide something desired, then it is perfectly appropriate
for others to collaborate on that... better than doing it totally isolated.
What Ean is talking about ties in with the general idea of distributed source management and distributed development. The general idea is that
there may be many forks of the main source repo, potentially with various branches for different improvements and changes. These are generally
made available publicly, like public GitHub forks of other public repositories (though with git they can be hosted anywhere).
Those who make changes can request that particular changes be pulled into upstream repositories and then those who maintain the upstream repos (or
the main project repo if it bubbles up that high) can review them and pull the changes if desired. Those who maintain upstream repos can also look
around for useful changes in forked repos and pull them in as desired. Others who run their own forks can pull in changes from peer repositories too.
It may seem like chaos to have forks and changes spread all over the place... but that isn't caused by the distributed source management approach,
it's just made visible and clear by the approach. Right now this exists on a large scale for OFBiz, tons of forks and changes in them, but they
are mostly not visible or publicly available so there is no way for OFBiz committers to pull changes from other repos... they basically have to be
extracted into a patch file and submitted through a Jira issue.
In other words, the chaos exists and the distributed source management enabled
by git just makes it easier to track it all and tame it a bit.
On a side note, this is one of the reasons I have concerns about making Moqui and related projects part of the ASF: the ASF community approach
doesn't fit very well with this distributed source management model (pull requests are discouraged, all contributions should go through Jira
issues... though I don't know that this is a strict policy).
-David
Interesting David, it can be compared to the OFBiz-France association effort to leverage the Nereides addons and addons manager. I let aside the
licenses issues, as long as it's no part of a released package there are no problems.
What do you think OFBiz-France members?
Jacques
If that is going to happen, I will say: 'I thank you for all the
contributions you did to the project'. And I will check in my sentiments at
the door. I do hope that if you do you also resign totally from this
project.
I rather have the community comes to its decision based on sound/valid
arguments, not (veiled) threats.
l
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Ean Schuessler <[email protected]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: move to git.
Like Adrian and mostly for the same reasons, I don't believe we need Git.
But there is one other major reason which has already been discussed in
the
other common ASF MLs. As Taher exulted, it's possible to create local
branches. So people are able to do a lot of work alone without
exchanging before
committing or submitting. It will certainly not help to have this
possibility.
I disagree. It is useful in many situations for OFBiz developers to create
a
local repository that is not globally shared. Some customers may even
require
such a situation for security or legal reasons.
Remember our recent discussion on the lack or core commits reviews.
With Git you end with commits bursts or big patches and it's then
hard to review and too late to share ideas.
So unlike Adrian, I'm even strongly against it. I will not hesitate to
use a -1
if necessary!
We are also prepared to be assertive regarding this situation. If the
project
does not move to GIT then Brainfood is willing to participate in a
consortium of
organizations that will peer with each other to share updates to the master
branch for their local OFBiz repository. Such an arrangement will,
effectively,
result in a distributed master repository image.
If anyone else is interested in such an arrangement please feel free to
speak
up and we can begin the planning process.
