[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4014?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13027567#comment-13027567
]
Jonas Falberg commented on OFBIZ-4014:
--
So I think your datejs localized file is not
Why?
Regards
Scott
On 1/05/2011, at 6:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi,
While browsing into HTTPClient files I found this bloc just under the ASL2
license header
* This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many
* individuals on behalf of the Apache Software Foundation.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4014?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13027584#comment-13027584
]
Sascha Rodekamp commented on OFBIZ-4014:
Hi Jonas,
yea i know, i wrote the
For users to have a better understanding on how the code was bring to them. It
seems not everybody really understand that
Jacques
Scott Gray wrote:
Why?
Regards
Scott
On 1/05/2011, at 6:43 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi,
While browsing into HTTPClient files I found this bloc just under
For users to have a better understanding on how the code was written
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
For users to have a better understanding on how the code was bring to them. It
seems not everybody really understand that
Jacques
Scott Gray wrote:
Why?
Regards
Scott
On 1/05/2011, at 6:43 AM,
Actually I just realize that this was part of the ASL 1.1 license
http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1
I still like the idea, only drawback it would slightly increase the weight of
OFBiz; I'd actually suggest
This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many
individuals on
That's great, David. Glad to know we'll have a garden soon.
On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 10:00 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
My goal is to split the community to various sub-communities involved in
different projects which make up an ecosystem of projects based on the same
framework and data model,
I have created the new branch:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/release11.04/
and updated the information here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Source+Repository+and+Access
Kind regards,
Jacopo
On Apr 25, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
Thanks Jacopo!
Thanks Regards
--
Deepak Dixit
On May 2, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
I have created the new branch:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/release11.04/
and updated the information here:
Hi all,
some time ago, we were speaking of the OFBiz's future, and integration
of new components. We were waiting for the 11.04 release to break
completly from the old architecture, and start on a new basis.
As Jaccopo just created the 11.04, what are the plans for the next months ?
We've
I gave up, would need to much false changes due to inconsistent EOLs
Jacques
From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
Actually I just realize that this was part of the ASL 1.1 license
http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1
I still like the idea, only drawback it would slightly
I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for
it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd
much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything
than use something where poorly thought out code can be
+1
Cheers,
Ruppert
On May 2, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for
it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd
much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder ofbiz-trunk while building
ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk/builds/1742
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: isis_ubuntu
Build Reason: scheduler
Build Source
Reviews, test and peers control should be sufficient, but yes it seems in some cases it's not enough, especially when we don't get a
good consensus, and then gradually everybody let the things roll
Jacques
Scott Gray wrote:
I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right
Just when I sent that, it appears again :/
http://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk/builds/1742/steps/compile_1/logs/stdio it's related to
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1098795view=rev where again nothing can be harmful.
I'm still not sure why it's appears, maybe when something changes in
Ha sorry, I did not notice it's related to cache:
[java] 2011-05-02 21:38:40,634 (main) [ TestRunContainer.java:182:INFO ] --
testExpire(org.ofbiz.base.util.cache.test.UtilCacheTests): empty
[java] 2011-05-02 21:38:40,634 (main) [ TestRunContainer.java:184:INFO ]
I've long since given up on reviewing any work, I would rarely get any support,
frequently get attacked and almost always come out with no result.
Regards
Scott
On 3/05/2011, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Reviews, test and peers control should be sufficient, but yes it seems in
some
I don't see the things as dark, but yes sometimes there are problems
Jacques
Scott Gray wrote:
I've long since given up on reviewing any work, I would rarely get any support,
frequently get attacked and almost always come
out with no result.
Regards
Scott
On 3/05/2011, at 9:47 AM, Jacques
As I thought with or w/out r1098795 changes tests are unsuccessful
At least we know now one reason
Jacques
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Ha sorry, I did not notice it's related to cache:
[java] 2011-05-02 21:38:40,634 (main) [ TestRunContainer.java:182:INFO ] --
We could limit commit access to the new framework.
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 2:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for
it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd
much rather use a framework that has
I think it's a timing issue in the cache. It always fails on my local copy.
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 3:02 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Ha sorry, I did not notice it's related to cache:
[java] 2011-05-02 21:38:40,634 (main) [
TestRunContainer.java:182:INFO ] --
Jacques, I hate to say it, but perhaps the reason is you often don't review and
push back hard enough on contributions. This results in a higher than desirable
rate of problematic contributions making it into the project, but certainly
results in a more personable and agreeable human
Good idea. Done.
-David
On May 2, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
We could limit commit access to the new framework.
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 2:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now
for it is that it would remove control
Except it's missing the community participating in the design part. ;-)
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 4:30 PM, David E Jones wrote:
Good idea. Done.
-David
On May 2, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
We could limit commit access to the new framework.
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 2:27 PM, Scott Gray
Some in the community participated in the design. I called for feedback here,
and some did, and others didn't.
I even did an initial design and waited about 10 months for feedback before
starting implementation. The opportunity was certainly there.
Even now if a really good bit of feedback
You're right - I forgot about that. Thanks!
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 4:38 PM, David E Jones wrote:
Some in the community participated in the design. I called for feedback here,
and some did, and others didn't.
I even did an initial design and waited about 10 months for feedback before
starting
In fact, we have a garden now... it's just looking for gardeners.
Moqui Framework 1.0 is feature-complete and in beta. The Mantle data model
(UDM) is in an initially complete state (except for seed data which I'm still
working on), and is at a point where feedback is the most important next
List:
Why is it that David is allowed to advertise continuously about his
latest pet project - that has nothing to do with OFBiz - on this mailing
list and others, such as myself can't even mention a resource dedicated
entirely to OFBiz, that many have found useful, (MyOFBiz.com
On 3/05/2011, at 12:51 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
List:
Why is it that David is allowed to advertise continuously about his latest
pet project - that has nothing to do with OFBiz - on this mailing list and
others, such as myself can't even mention a resource dedicated entirely to
OFBiz, that
I agree with Scott, but at the same time I agree with Ruth a little.
David started off promoting Moqui by bashing on the OFBiz developer
community and the product. But he's toned that down now, so I think a
discussion about using it in the OFBiz project is appropriate.
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011
On 3/05/2011, at 1:48 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I agree with Scott, but at the same time I agree with Ruth a little.
David started off promoting Moqui by bashing on the OFBiz developer community
and the product.
But to be fair, he was doing that before he got Moqui under way as well and
that
On 5/2/11 9:23 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
On 3/05/2011, at 12:51 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
List:
Why is it that David is allowed to advertise continuously about his latest pet
project - that has nothing to do with OFBiz - on this mailing list and others,
such as myself can't even mention a
On 3/05/2011, at 2:26 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
On 5/2/11 9:23 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
On 3/05/2011, at 12:51 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
List:
Why is it that David is allowed to advertise continuously about his latest
pet project - that has nothing to do with OFBiz - on this mailing list and
Ruth,
It's not as if I'm an outsider taking pot-shots at something from a distance. I
also think OFBiz is great, but after working with it for a decade I'm confident
I can do better, and I can confidently say the same about many in the OFBiz
community. We can do better, and what's more: we
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4014?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13028044#comment-13028044
]
Sascha Rodekamp commented on OFBIZ-4014:
Hi Jonas,
the patch is in Trunk
36 matches
Mail list logo
