Attaching files to a product

[BJ Freeman]

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.

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
>>
>

[Scott Gray-2]

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
>>>
>>

[BJ Freeman]

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
>>>>
>>>
>

[hans_bakker]

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.

[Scott Gray-2]

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.
>

[hans_bakker]

You disappoint me as a technical person that you do not see the benefit
of being able to easily merge changes back in the branch what is not
possible in sourceforge etc...

On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:27 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:

> 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.

[Scott Gray-2]

It would be less work to merge such changes back than it would be to try and administer any number of contributor branches.

The ASF has pretty clear policies about who can commit to ASF repositories and the process for granting those privileges.  You cannot simply grant commit privileges at will even if it is only to a branch.

You disappoint me as a PMC member to even be raising the idea, it would be nice if you had at least a basic understanding of how the ASF works.

Regards
Scott

On 10/07/2010, at 5:43 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> You disappoint me as a technical person that you do not see the benefit
> of being able to easily merge changes back in the branch what is not
> possible in sourceforge etc...
>
> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:27 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>> 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.
>

[BJ Freeman]

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.
>>
>

[BJ Freeman]

I had looked this up earlier

A committer is a developer that was given write access to the code
repository and has a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on file.
They have an apache.org mail address. Not needing to depend on other
people for the patches, they are actually making short-term decisions
for the project. The PMC can (even tacitly) agree and approve it into
permanency, or they can reject it. Remember that the PMC makes the
decisions, not the individual people.
PMC Member

A PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to merit
for the evolution of the project and demonstration of commitment. They
have write access to the code repository, an apache.org mail address,
the right to vote for the community-related decisions and the right to
propose an active user for committership. The PMC as a whole is the
entity that controls the project, nobody else.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities

Scott Gray sent the following on 7/9/2010 10:53 PM:

> It would be less work to merge such changes back than it would be to try and administer any number of contributor branches.
>
> The ASF has pretty clear policies about who can commit to ASF repositories and the process for granting those privileges.  You cannot simply grant commit privileges at will even if it is only to a branch.
>
> You disappoint me as a PMC member to even be raising the idea, it would be nice if you had at least a basic understanding of how the ASF works.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 10/07/2010, at 5:43 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> You disappoint me as a technical person that you do not see the benefit
>> of being able to easily merge changes back in the branch what is not
>> possible in sourceforge etc...
>>
>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:27 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>

[BJ Freeman]

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.
>>>
>>
>

[Malin Nicolas]

Hi BJ,

We had same problem with neogia project, and it's the reason we created the addon manager system.
Instead of creating a specific branch by idea (with problems in allowing commit, reviewing code, synchronizing at time, ...) you can create addons with your enchancements and explain in helpdata files why doing this, how using it, and continue your improvement with OFBiz trunk.

Neogia isn't limited to European (or French) developpers and if you want we can open the brainstorming repository to people who wish improve OFBiz easing the burden of commiters. You will just have to create an account on the forge.

Nicolas

[Bilgin Ibryam-2]

On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Hans Bakker
<[hidden email]>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.
>
>

I'm thankful to these technical people. Their code reviews guarantee the
quality of the code going into the project.
Otherwise Ofbiz would become a beast such as opentaps - big, slow and hard
to maintain.
Nothing against new features, they are very welcome but stability at first
place in my opinion.

my 2 cents

Bilgin

[hans_bakker]

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.

[BJ Freeman]

one point I never intended the branch be merged into the trunk
it would remain a branch of contributions that users could integrate
back into their own copy.

Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/15/2010 1:59 AM:

> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

Hans,

How would you create such a branch, or what would that look like? Who would be able to commit to it?

-David


On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> 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.
>

[BJ Freeman]

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal 


David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 9:03 AM:

>
> Hans,
>
> How would you create such a branch, or what would that look like? Who would be able to commit to it?
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

This looks like more of a separate repository than a branch of OFBiz.

First off, the term "branch" just doesn't apply. A branch of a source repository is effectively a copy of the repo that can be changed separately and is meant to eventually be merged back into the trunk. If a branch is not meant to be merged back into the trunk, it is a fork.

What you're describing isn't even a fork as it doesn't sound like it would be a copy of OFBiz that is changed separately, but rather a repository for add-on modules.

Also, it sounds like it would best be done outside of the ASF, especially if you don't want a vote where PMC votes are binding... that's all there is at the ASF.

For those interested, why not just create a sourceforge or google code project and share commit access with others who are interested? There is nothing that says OFBiz add-on modules have to be part of the project, or that people can't create separate projects to do such things. If various people want to work together to do so, from the community spirit perspective... all the better!

-David


On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:11 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:

> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal 
>
> David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 9:03 AM:
>>
>> Hans,
>>
>> How would you create such a branch, or what would that look like? Who would be able to commit to it?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>

[Ashish Vijaywargiya]

>>Nothing against new features, they are very welcome but stability at first
>> place in my opinion.

+1

--
Ashish


On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Bilgin Ibryam <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Hans Bakker
> <[hidden email]>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.
>>
>>
>
> I'm thankful to these technical people. Their code reviews guarantee the
> quality of the code going into the project.
> Otherwise Ofbiz would become a beast such as opentaps - big, slow and hard
> to maintain.
> Nothing against new features, they are very welcome but stability at first
> place in my opinion.
>
> my 2 cents
>
> Bilgin
>

[BJ Freeman]

Inlne:

David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 10:39 AM:
>
> This looks like more of a separate repository than a branch of OFBiz.
yes and no.
since it would usually not be merged back to ofbiz, yes, being able to
sync trunk to branch that all in the branch work with no.

>
> First off, the term "branch" just doesn't apply. A branch of a source repository is

effectively a copy of the repo that can be changed separately
that was the intention.

and is meant to eventually be merged back into the trunk.
If a branch is not meant to be merged back into the trunk, it is a fork.
So version 4.0 9.04, 10.4 will be merged back to the trunk?
or are they now Forks?
>
> What you're describing isn't even a fork as it doesn't sound like it would be a copy of OFBiz that is changed separately,
matter of perspective
but rather a repository for add-on modules.
of course they are addons.
for instance the manufacturing, travel and Eccommerce would be defined
as addon, Just as the finacial Services, telecommunication,
Proffiessional services, Insurance and HealthCare are in the vol II of
data model book.
so why limit it to just those vertical markets. there are many.
By having the trunk brought into the Contributors "section" they would
could access it and pull down everything at once to work with or use.

>
> Also, it sounds like it would best be done outside of the ASF, especially
the reason to keep it was the ability to move the truck into it.

if you don't want a vote where PMC votes are binding... that's all there
is at the ASF.
clarification  it was meant to communicate the popular vote is meant as
an indicatore, but the PMC would be the deciding vote.
>
> For those interested, why not just create a sourceforge or google code project and share commit access with others who are interested? There is nothing that says OFBiz add-on modules have to be part of the project, or that people can't create separate projects to do such things. If various people want to work together to do so, from the community spirit perspective... all the better!
it also gives ofbiz a greater appeal to the users that may use ofbiz in
a vertical market.
and it does not stop  any current developer from learning and offering
these.

>
> -David
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:11 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal
>>
>> David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 9:03 AM:
>>>
>>> Hans,
>>>
>>> How would you create such a branch, or what would that look like? Who would be able to commit to it?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Bruno Busco]

Having these extensions managed as add-on modules in a separate repository
will be beneficial to the OFBiz trunk.

I mean that this way of managing extensions will probabily require
improvements in the trunk itself to better manage extensions. (i.e.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3373)

Having the extensions in the trunk could generate new dependency problems
(like we have now with many of OFBiz components) and will not help setting
in place a powerfull, community-wide method of managing extensions.

My two cents,

-Bruno


2010/7/15 BJ Freeman <[hidden email]>

> Inlne:
>
> David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 10:39 AM:
>
>
>> This looks like more of a separate repository than a branch of OFBiz.
>>
> yes and no.
> since it would usually not be merged back to ofbiz, yes, being able to sync
> trunk to branch that all in the branch work with no.
>
>
>
>> First off, the term "branch" just doesn't apply. A branch of a source
>> repository is
>>
>
> effectively a copy of the repo that can be changed separately
> that was the intention.
>
>
> and is meant to eventually be merged back into the trunk.
> If a branch is not meant to be merged back into the trunk, it is a fork.
> So version 4.0 9.04, 10.4 will be merged back to the trunk?
> or are they now Forks?
>
>
>> What you're describing isn't even a fork as it doesn't sound like it would
>> be a copy of OFBiz that is changed separately,
>>
> matter of perspective
>
> but rather a repository for add-on modules.
> of course they are addons.
> for instance the manufacturing, travel and Eccommerce would be defined as
> addon, Just as the finacial Services, telecommunication, Proffiessional
> services, Insurance and HealthCare are in the vol II of data model book.
> so why limit it to just those vertical markets. there are many.
> By having the trunk brought into the Contributors "section" they would
> could access it and pull down everything at once to work with or use.
>
>
>
>> Also, it sounds like it would best be done outside of the ASF, especially
>>
> the reason to keep it was the ability to move the truck into it.
>
>
> if you don't want a vote where PMC votes are binding... that's all there is
> at the ASF.
> clarification  it was meant to communicate the popular vote is meant as an
> indicatore, but the PMC would be the deciding vote.
>
>
>> For those interested, why not just create a sourceforge or google code
>> project and share commit access with others who are interested? There is
>> nothing that says OFBiz add-on modules have to be part of the project, or
>> that people can't create separate projects to do such things. If various
>> people want to work together to do so, from the community spirit
>> perspective... all the better!
>>
> it also gives ofbiz a greater appeal to the users that may use ofbiz in a
> vertical market.
> and it does not stop  any current developer from learning and offering
> these.
>
>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:11 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal
>>>
>>> David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 9:03 AM:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hans,
>>>>
>>>> How would you create such a branch, or what would that look like? Who
>>>> would be able to commit to it?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>