rev. 529892
I think that now the index page is ready for the restyling/refactoring,
and it would be great to continue the discussion about the new site
look/content.
Jacopo
David E. Jones wrote:
Great, go for it!
-David
On Apr 17, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
As already d
David,
Probably because the plan describes the branching strategy just vaguely and assumes everybody
knows the details? The strategy described is commonplace and tested, so I second it.
Here's probably the missing piece of info that some folks are looking for, to get confidence in
starting th
+1 for a branch on Friday
and also the release plan looks fine to me
Regards
Scott
On 18/04/07, Michael Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like the information that the struts project has on their release plan
page. Maybe something similar?
http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/release-plan-201
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-871?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12489577
]
Dan Shields commented on OFBIZ-871:
---
I don't know about Windows, but on LInux (using a corresponding configuration),
OK for me
Jacques
> As already discussed in the mailing list some time ago, I've migrated
> the "Docs & Books" page to the following two Confluence pages:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/Swg
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/QQg
>
> Now I'm ready to remove the old "Docs & Books" page from the website,
> re
Great, go for it!
-David
On Apr 17, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
As already discussed in the mailing list some time ago, I've
migrated the "Docs & Books" page to the following two Confluence
pages:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/Swg
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/QQg
Now I'm ready to r
As already discussed in the mailing list some time ago, I've migrated
the "Docs & Books" page to the following two Confluence pages:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/Swg
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/QQg
Now I'm ready to remove the old "Docs & Books" page from the website,
remove the top Home/Docs&Books tab
I like the information that the struts project has on their release plan
page. Maybe something similar?
http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/release-plan-201.html
Mike
BJ Freeman wrote:
> David,
> what needs to be said on the release Plan, for it to be implemented?
>
> BJ Freeman sent the followin
Should we qualify this a little bit more, ie more than just:
if (obj.getClass().isArray())
I'm thinking maybe we should also see if the type is "List" or
"java.util.List" or the like. What if they pass in "String" for the
type?
-David
On Apr 17, 2007, at 12:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot
What are we voting on?
On 4/17/07, Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Should we just set a date so everyone knows it's coming, and then just
> go for it?
>
> How about this Friday?
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2007, at 11:05 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> I
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-828?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jacques Le Roux closed OFBIZ-828.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: SVN trunk
This is hopefully fixed in rev. 529701.
> prob
+1
David E. Jones wrote:
Should we just set a date so everyone knows it's coming, and then just
go for it?
How about this Friday?
-David
On Apr 17, 2007, at 11:05 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
I'm just concerned because most of the discussion seems to be related
to things that are alre
Anil Patel wrote:
What are we voting on?
Creating a branch this Friday so we can start working on a release.
David,
what needs to be said on the release Plan, for it to be implemented?
BJ Freeman sent the following on 4/17/2007 9:58 AM:
> I have read the release plan, however it has been there for a while and
> we can't seem to get to the next step of implementing.
> I am guessing everyone is saying lets
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-878?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Tim Ruppert closed OFBIZ-878.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Thanks for this Anil. This is in rev 529677
> Extend UPS Shipping Estimate Service to
Should we just set a date so everyone knows it's coming, and then
just go for it?
How about this Friday?
-David
On Apr 17, 2007, at 11:05 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
I'm just concerned because most of the discussion seems to be
related to things that are already in the Release Plan.
S
I'm just concerned because most of the discussion seems to be related
to things that are already in the Release Plan.
So, maybe we need a thread for a RFC on the Release Plan first?
The big point of the release plan that everyone seems to agree on is,
let's just do the branch! The point of
What about simply forking a release branch now, and then we work on stabilizing and debugging THAT
branch?
As and when new fixes go into the trunk, we can merge those fixes into the branch. Ideally, the
release branch will not take in new features from the trunk, but only fixes to bring the bra
I have read the release plan, however it has been there for a while and
we can't seem to get to the next step of implementing.
I am guessing everyone is saying lets get a move on.
Action
David E. Jones sent the following on 4/17/2007 8:55 AM:
>
> This is a very relevant topic, but it might be hel
This is a very relevant topic, but it might be helpful to in terms of
the existing Release Plan:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
I don't see people referring to this much or talking in terms of
"this is the plan, but maybe we should do it X way because of Y". Is
that
The sooner the better, in my opinion. We could keep on discussing it, but that
would just delay it more. As far as I know, no one has OBJECTED to it, so why
not just get the ball rolling?
We can still fix the bugs after the branch.
Si Chen wrote:
The SVN right now is in reasonably good shape i
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-899?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Tim Ruppert closed OFBIZ-899.
-
Resolution: Fixed
This is fixed last night - please update when you get a chance Ean.
> URL Connector can
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-899?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ean Schuessler updated OFBIZ-899:
-
Attachment: connector_patch.txt
Here is a patch to add the missing method.
> URL Connector cannot
required parameter is missing: [attachUploadToDataResource.mimeTypeId]
--
Key: OFBIZ-900
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-900
Project: OFBiz (The Open for Business Pro
I agree.
Adrian Crum wrote:
The sooner the better, in my opinion. We could keep on discussing it,
but that would just delay it more. As far as I know, no one has OBJECTED
to it, so why not just get the ball rolling?
We can still fix the bugs after the branch.
Si Chen wrote:
The SVN right now
URL Connector cannot be called with URL url, int timeout, String clientCertAlias
Key: OFBIZ-899
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-899
Project: OFBiz (The O
The SVN right now is in reasonably good shape in my opinion -- it's been
more stable in the past, but there's also been a lot of times when it's
a lot less stable. I think we need to get the framework to a stable
point and resolve any critical applications bugs, and then it should be
a pretty
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-885?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12489415
]
Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-885:
-
Iain,
yes, it would be great if you could create a Jira issue beca
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-885?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12489414
]
Iain Fogg commented on OFBIZ-885:
-
Jacopo,
Yes it is a PO. To be honest, I'm not sure what I was trying to do, but
i
I've added the new field in rev. 529589
Let me know if you don't like it.
Jacopo
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Does it make sense to add a "description" field to the
InventoryItemDetail entity?
For example for an inventory item consumed by a work effort it could be
useful to specify a description
Hi Michael,
LiveGrid Plus does this pretty well. Services just need to be made to
handle the variables correctly.
--- Michael Imhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, javascript could do this quick and cheap. But what happens with
> lists
> using pagination!!!
> With javascript, we are just
+1 for creating a release branch.
> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include
> whatever it includes.
As an training course, I have arranged a man to test current HEAD in
different enviroments.
I think the release branch can be created now.
Regards,
Shi Yusen/Beijing Lang
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-885?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12489393
]
Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-885:
-
Iain,
about WS10131: it is strange... but that is a purchase order
On Apr 17, 2007, at 6:19 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
If we keep going on features, there never will be release, IMHO.
Feature development and release maintenance are totally different
things and can be done, and we plan to do them, at the same time.
The plan for this is described here:
http://
David:
One thing I learned in projects, is do a sky blue then cut down to the
practical.
Practical here, IMHO, is to get a freeze point (branch), Make some
milestones to fix the bugs.
If we keep going on features, there never will be release, IMHO.
David E. Jones sent the following on 4/16/2007 1
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-885?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12489359
]
Iain Fogg commented on OFBIZ-885:
-
Jacopo,
Ug. I need to spend some more time getting a clean example going on the
s
Yes, javascript could do this quick and cheap. But what happens with lists
using pagination!!!
With javascript, we are just sorting the values of the current page instead
of sorting overall.
And that's not what a user expects when he does sorting. For this reason
we're using sorting
ONLY on datab
37 matches
Mail list logo
