Shouldn't we do a proof of concept? I will volunteer to create and update a new branch for BJ to start and everyone who would like to contribute. When the people on this branch say they are ready we can judge what is there and/or provide suggestions for enhancement.
After general consensus the branch will be merged into the trunk. Any comments? Regards, Hans On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 18:21 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal > > BJ Freeman sent the following on 7/9/2010 11:07 PM: > > I am writing a proposal for Contributors branch. > > some of the points are: > > 1)components not continued to be supported in the specialpurpose get > > move to the contributors branch till interest is renewed. > > this would simplify maintaining the trunk but allow people to pull it > > down if they want to work on it. > > 2)there is no guarantee of the ofbiz community support of the > > contributions. > > 3)people can test the contribution and may vote to include it in the trunk. > > 4)it gives one place to make sure all contributions are integrated with > > the latest trunk and each other without effecting the trunk. > > > > it puzzles me that it is ok open a branch to collorate, but when > > opportunity to have a lot of contributions avalible that would spread > > Ofbiz acceptance you bulk. under you logic that it can be done elsewhere > > why not do the same for Hippo. > > I would be interested in your reasons why besides it can be elsewhere. > > > > > > > > Scott Gray sent the following on 7/9/2010 10:27 PM: > >> What need would contributor branches meet that can't already be met > >> using the likes of sourceforge, google code or github? > >> > >> Regarding your other statements, at some point Hans you are going to > >> need to ask yourself why it is mostly only your commits that cause so > >> much negative discussion. Everyone else seems to work together just > >> fine for the most part. I'm not saying it's all your fault but you > >> can't just blame everyone else for these problems and ignore your own > >> contribution to them. > >> > >> Regards > >> Scott > >> > >> On 10/07/2010, at 2:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: > >> > >>> I have the same opinion as you BJ, even as a committer it is too much > >>> problem contributing because of the number of technical people in the > >>> PMC which often only judge on technical qualities and making the system > >>> technically as difficult as possible. > >>> > >>> The current discussion (not really sure if it is one) between Adrian and > >>> me is a good example. > >>> > >>> I think it would be a good idea to have contributor branches. Other PMC > >>> members who would support this? > >>> > >>> To be honest i think that you should try to become a committer, i know > >>> why you did not accept in the past, but please reconsider. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Hans > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 18:33 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: > >>>> my goal has always been to have this ofbiz do this. it has never > >>>> been my > >>>> intent to have a seperate ofbiz. Nor am I promoting mine. > >>>> my problem up to now has been acceptance and resources. > >>>> I see the winds changing on acceptance and I have gotten the resources. > >>>> if you note I suggest years ago to have contributor branches. > >>>> Had that happened I would have contributed to it instead of create > >>>> mine. > >>>> I see the equivalent of contributor branch happening more like the > >>>> Current Hippo branch. > >>>> so if someone wants to open a branch I can just submit to, it would be > >>>> faster, however i am happy to provide Jiras. > >>>> so if the Jiras I put patches in are accepted then the ofbiz will work > >>>> the same as the one I have. > >>>> Note my first major move to accomplish this > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3852 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/9/2010 5:18 PM: > >>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 1:06 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> a product is more of a marketing item > >>>>>> a part is a description of a function > >>>>>> they vary for engineering and manufacturing. Engineering does not > >>>>>> assign a commercial product to the part where manufacture may list > >>>>>> many actual purchase parts that will never be sold individually. > >>>>>> I see in the model book the one I implemented is the alternative > >>>>>> and more extensive model. > >>>>> > >>>>> Congratulations, where can I download a copy of this BJBiz? Please > >>>>> try and keep in mind that we are discussing OFBiz in this mailing > >>>>> list, not your derivative of it. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/5/2010 5:53 PM: > >>>>>>> In OFBiz a Part is a Product, so what is your point? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>> Scott > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> HotWax Media > >>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 6/07/2010, at 12:16 PM, BJ Freeman wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I wish to be able to have our engineers link plans to parts > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ========================= > >>>>>>>> BJ Freeman<http://bjfreeman.elance.com> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [snip] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> BTW your quoting is terrible, I never made the statement below > >>>>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on 7/5/2010 5:02 PM: > >>>>>>>>> I wish to be able to have our engineers link plans to parts > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz > >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak > >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. > >>> > >> > > -- Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
