I just want unambiguous communications from the project to its community (contributors and adopters).
Messages as 'what I understand' are personal viewpoints, and - like other posting that starts in similar ways - dilute perceptions of the project's direction with respect to its products. If all are on the same page, then there is some shared agreement on the conclusion derived from the thread. This means that an explicit statement can be made by the PMC regarding the short term action and sent to the entire community (the user ml), so that every contributor and adopters can determine what to expect from the project. Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato < jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > I went thru all the comments in this thread and it seems to me that the > summary that Sharan provided based on the discussion on the user list is a > good way to go to deal with Pierre's and other's concerns and with the > concerns of the developers: it seems we are all on the same page. > > Jacopo > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Taher, > > > > It seems you did not read the entire posting. > > > > The ASF doesn't object from having external libraries (3rd party jar > files) > > in the convenience downloads projects make available. This is what OFBiz > > does also. > > > > If there is a problem within the release process, regarding the external > > libraries, then there are more ways around that than to fix something > that > > is not broken. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Pierre Smits > > > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > > OFBiz based solutions & services > > > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Taher Alkhateeb < > > slidingfilame...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Pierre, > > > > > > It seems you did not read the entire sentence, so I will write here > again > > > from the JIRA you mentioned. > > > > > > From Jacques: "There is no problems having an external jar (and even > > more) > > > in the repo. The pb is only when we release" > > > > > > This is exactly what Sharan is saying above. You can keep Jars in > > branches, > > > "Releases" are where you are not supposed to keep binaries. > > > > > > HTH > > > > > > Taher Alkhateeb > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Jacques posted this recently in a JIRA issue: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7768?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15369886#comment-15369886 > > > > > > > > Stating that there is no issue with having 3rd party libraries (jar > > > files) > > > > in the repo. > > > > Also the ASF does not object to have 3rd party libraries in the > > > convenience > > > > downloads that the project makes available. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Pierre Smits > > > > > > > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > > > > OFBiz based solutions & services > > > > > > > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > > > > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Sharan Foga <sharan.f...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Pierre > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for starting the discussion. I had expected to start it this > > > week, > > > > > giving us time to continue stabilising and consolidating the gradle > > > work > > > > in > > > > > the trunk from last week. (Also a minor correction – I 'suggested' > > not > > > > > 'promised'). > > > > > > > > > > Anyway my suggestion was to take the discussion to this list to > talk > > > > about > > > > > the next steps. So just as a recap from the user mailing list, my > > > summary > > > > > of the discussion there included the following points that are > > relevant > > > > to > > > > > the 14.12 and 15.12 unreleased branches. > > > > > > > > > > 1) - We would not backport any of the gradle changes into the > 14.12. > > or > > > > > 15.12 > > > > > branches because it would cause instability > > > > > 2) - We would leave 14.12 and 15.12 as unreleased branches as they > > are > > > > now > > > > > (and not > > > > > make them into releases as to do that we would need to remove all > the > > > jar > > > > > files > > > > > and this would create instability). > > > > > 3) - The benefits for our community are that developers and service > > > > > providers will > > > > > still have access to the complete codebase for 14.12 and 15.12 > > > including > > > > > the > > > > > special purpose components to be able to support their client base. > > > > > > > > > > My understanding was that the community did reach a consensus on > > these > > > > > points. No-one responded to correct, update nor oppose any of these > > > > points. > > > > > > > > > > Both of your questions are answered by the second point. So based > on > > > this > > > > > the responses to your questions are: > > > > > > > > > > - No, we are not going to delete the external libraries from the > > > > > unreleased branches 14.12 and 15.12 (if they remain as unreleased > > > > branches > > > > > the there is no need to remove the external jars) > > > > > > > > > > - No, we are not going to delete the entire unreleased branches > 14.12 > > > and > > > > > 15.12 (we are leaving these available so that our community will > > still > > > > have > > > > > access to the complete codebase including the special purpose > > > components) > > > > > > > > > > In fact the main discussion that I wanted to start here was more > > > related > > > > > to support for 14.12 and 15.12. As we are in transition to gradle, > > we > > > > need > > > > > to define a time period for backporting bug fixes into these > > unreleased > > > > > branches. > > > > > > > > > > As an initial suggestion – would 12 months be a good timeframe to > > work > > > > > with. What do other people think? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Sharan > > > > > > > > > > On 2016-07-10 10:48 (+0200), Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sharan promised the greater community in the '[*[DISCUSSION]* > > > > > *Anticipate* > > > > > > the *end* of *life* of the *13.07* branch and backport some > > non-bug > > > > > > related changes to the 14.12 and 15.12 branches > > > > > > <http://markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf>' starting via > > > > > > http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf ) that the > > > > discussion > > > > > > would continue in the dev ml. > > > > > > > > > > > > As I haven't seen her start that discussion, I will: > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that Sharan made clear that external libraries as per ASF > > > > > guidelines > > > > > > and rulings, we need to decide what to do with the r14.x and the > > > r15.x > > > > > > branches, as these hold all the external libraries required to > > build, > > > > > test > > > > > > and/or run a copy from that branch in a separate environment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the questions are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - are we going to delete the external libraries from the > > branches, > > > > or > > > > > > - are we going to delete the entire branches? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we should have this addressed in order to provide the > > > greater > > > > > > community with a clear answer as what to expect regarding future > > > > > adoptions > > > > > > and/or upgrades. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pierre Smits > > > > > > > > > > > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > > > > > > OFBiz based solutions & services > > > > > > > > > > > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > > > > > > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
