[DISCUSSION] What are we going to do with the R14.x and r15.x?

[Pierre Smits]

Hi all,

Sharan promised the greater community in the '[*[DISCUSSION]* *Anticipate*
 the *end* of *life* of the *13.07* branch and backport some non-bug
related changes to the 14.12 and 15.12 branches
<http://markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf>' starting via
http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf ) that the discussion
would continue in the dev ml.

As I haven't seen her start that discussion, I will:

Given that Sharan made clear that external libraries as per ASF guidelines
and rulings, we need to decide what to do with the r14.x and the r15.x
branches, as these hold all the external libraries required to build, test
and/or run a copy from that branch in a separate environment.


So the questions are:


   - are we going to delete the external libraries from the branches, or
   - are we going to delete the entire branches?


I believe we should have this addressed in order to provide the greater
community with a clear answer as what to expect regarding future adoptions
and/or upgrades.

Best regards,


Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

[Sharan-F]

Hi Pierre

Thanks for starting the discussion. I had expected to start it this week, giving us time to continue stabilising and consolidating the gradle work in the trunk from last week. (Also a minor correction – I 'suggested' not 'promised').

Anyway my suggestion was to take the discussion to this list to talk about the next steps. So just as a recap from the user mailing list, my summary of the discussion there included the following points that are relevant to the 14.12 and 15.12 unreleased branches.

1) - We would not backport any of the gradle changes into the 14.12. or 15.12
branches because it would cause instability
2) - We would leave 14.12 and 15.12 as unreleased branches as they are now (and not
make them into releases as to do that we would need to remove all the jar files
and this would create instability).
3) - The benefits for our community are that developers and service providers will
still have access to the complete codebase for 14.12 and 15.12 including the
special purpose components to be able to support their client base.

My understanding was that the community did reach a consensus on these points. No-one responded to correct, update nor oppose any of these points.  

Both of your questions are answered by the second point. So based on this the responses to your questions are:

- No, we are not going to delete the external libraries from the unreleased branches 14.12 and 15.12  (if they remain as unreleased branches the there is no need to remove the external jars)

- No, we are not going to delete the entire unreleased branches 14.12 and 15.12 (we are leaving these available so that our community will still have access to the complete codebase including the special purpose components)

In fact the main discussion that I wanted to start here was more related to support for 14.12 and 15.12.  As we are in transition to gradle, we need to define a time period for backporting bug fixes into these unreleased branches.

As an initial suggestion – would 12 months be a good timeframe to work with. What do other people think?

Thanks
Sharan

On 2016-07-10 10:48 (+0200), Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Sharan promised the greater community in the '[*[DISCUSSION]* *Anticipate*
>  the *end* of *life* of the *13.07* branch and backport some non-bug
> related changes to the 14.12 and 15.12 branches
> <http://markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf>' starting via
> http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf ) that the discussion
> would continue in the dev ml.
>
> As I haven't seen her start that discussion, I will:
>
> Given that Sharan made clear that external libraries as per ASF guidelines
> and rulings, we need to decide what to do with the r14.x and the r15.x
> branches, as these hold all the external libraries required to build, test
> and/or run a copy from that branch in a separate environment.
>
>
> So the questions are:
>
>
>    - are we going to delete the external libraries from the branches, or
>    - are we going to delete the entire branches?
>
>
> I believe we should have this addressed in order to provide the greater
> community with a clear answer as what to expect regarding future adoptions
> and/or upgrades.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> OFBiz based solutions & services
>
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>

[Pierre Smits]

Jacques posted this recently in a JIRA issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7768?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15369886#comment-15369886

Stating that there is no issue with having 3rd party libraries (jar files)
in the repo.
Also the ASF does not object to have 3rd party libraries in the convenience
downloads that the project makes available.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Sharan Foga <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Pierre
>
> Thanks for starting the discussion. I had expected to start it this week,
> giving us time to continue stabilising and consolidating the gradle work in
> the trunk from last week. (Also a minor correction – I 'suggested' not
> 'promised').
>
> Anyway my suggestion was to take the discussion to this list to talk about
> the next steps. So just as a recap from the user mailing list, my summary
> of the discussion there included the following points that are relevant to
> the 14.12 and 15.12 unreleased branches.
>
> 1) - We would not backport any of the gradle changes into the 14.12. or
> 15.12
> branches because it would cause instability
> 2) - We would leave 14.12 and 15.12 as unreleased branches as they are now
> (and not
> make them into releases as to do that we would need to remove all the jar
> files
> and this would create instability).
> 3) - The benefits for our community are that developers and service
> providers will
> still have access to the complete codebase for 14.12 and 15.12 including
> the
> special purpose components to be able to support their client base.
>
> My understanding was that the community did reach a consensus on these
> points. No-one responded to correct, update nor oppose any of these points.
>
> Both of your questions are answered by the second point. So based on this
> the responses to your questions are:
>
> - No, we are not going to delete the external libraries from the
> unreleased branches 14.12 and 15.12  (if they remain as unreleased branches
> the there is no need to remove the external jars)
>
> - No, we are not going to delete the entire unreleased branches 14.12 and
> 15.12 (we are leaving these available so that our community will still have
> access to the complete codebase including the special purpose components)
>
> In fact the main discussion that I wanted to start here was more related
> to support for 14.12 and 15.12.  As we are in transition to gradle, we need
> to define a time period for backporting bug fixes into these unreleased
> branches.
>
> As an initial suggestion – would 12 months be a good timeframe to work
> with. What do other people think?
>
> Thanks
> Sharan
>
> On 2016-07-10 10:48 (+0200), Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Sharan promised the greater community in the '[*[DISCUSSION]*
> *Anticipate*
> >  the *end* of *life* of the *13.07* branch and backport some non-bug
> > related changes to the 14.12 and 15.12 branches
> > <http://markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf>' starting via
> > http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf ) that the discussion
> > would continue in the dev ml.
> >
> > As I haven't seen her start that discussion, I will:
> >
> > Given that Sharan made clear that external libraries as per ASF
> guidelines
> > and rulings, we need to decide what to do with the r14.x and the r15.x
> > branches, as these hold all the external libraries required to build,
> test
> > and/or run a copy from that branch in a separate environment.
> >
> >
> > So the questions are:
> >
> >
> >    - are we going to delete the external libraries from the branches, or
> >    - are we going to delete the entire branches?
> >
> >
> > I believe we should have this addressed in order to provide the greater
> > community with a clear answer as what to expect regarding future
> adoptions
> > and/or upgrades.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> > OFBiz based solutions & services
> >
> > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> >
>

[taher]

Hi Pierre,

It seems you did not read the entire sentence, so I will write here again
from the JIRA you mentioned.

From Jacques: "There is no problems having an external jar (and even more)
in the repo. The pb is only when we release"

This is exactly what Sharan is saying above. You can keep Jars in branches,
"Releases" are where you are not supposed to keep binaries.

HTH

Taher Alkhateeb

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Jacques posted this recently in a JIRA issue:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7768?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15369886#comment-15369886
>
> Stating that there is no issue with having 3rd party libraries (jar files)
> in the repo.
> Also the ASF does not object to have 3rd party libraries in the convenience
> downloads that the project makes available.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> OFBiz based solutions & services
>
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Sharan Foga <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pierre
> >
> > Thanks for starting the discussion. I had expected to start it this week,
> > giving us time to continue stabilising and consolidating the gradle work
> in
> > the trunk from last week. (Also a minor correction – I 'suggested' not
> > 'promised').
> >
> > Anyway my suggestion was to take the discussion to this list to talk
> about
> > the next steps. So just as a recap from the user mailing list, my summary
> > of the discussion there included the following points that are relevant
> to
> > the 14.12 and 15.12 unreleased branches.
> >
> > 1) - We would not backport any of the gradle changes into the 14.12. or
> > 15.12
> > branches because it would cause instability
> > 2) - We would leave 14.12 and 15.12 as unreleased branches as they are
> now
> > (and not
> > make them into releases as to do that we would need to remove all the jar
> > files
> > and this would create instability).
> > 3) - The benefits for our community are that developers and service
> > providers will
> > still have access to the complete codebase for 14.12 and 15.12 including
> > the
> > special purpose components to be able to support their client base.
> >
> > My understanding was that the community did reach a consensus on these
> > points. No-one responded to correct, update nor oppose any of these
> points.
> >
> > Both of your questions are answered by the second point. So based on this
> > the responses to your questions are:
> >
> > - No, we are not going to delete the external libraries from the
> > unreleased branches 14.12 and 15.12  (if they remain as unreleased
> branches
> > the there is no need to remove the external jars)
> >
> > - No, we are not going to delete the entire unreleased branches 14.12 and
> > 15.12 (we are leaving these available so that our community will still
> have
> > access to the complete codebase including the special purpose components)
> >
> > In fact the main discussion that I wanted to start here was more related
> > to support for 14.12 and 15.12.  As we are in transition to gradle, we
> need
> > to define a time period for backporting bug fixes into these unreleased
> > branches.
> >
> > As an initial suggestion – would 12 months be a good timeframe to work
> > with. What do other people think?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Sharan
> >
> > On 2016-07-10 10:48 (+0200), Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Sharan promised the greater community in the '[*[DISCUSSION]*
> > *Anticipate*
> > >  the *end* of *life* of the *13.07* branch and backport some non-bug
> > > related changes to the 14.12 and 15.12 branches
> > > <http://markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf>' starting via
> > > http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf ) that the
> discussion
> > > would continue in the dev ml.
> > >
> > > As I haven't seen her start that discussion, I will:
> > >
> > > Given that Sharan made clear that external libraries as per ASF
> > guidelines
> > > and rulings, we need to decide what to do with the r14.x and the r15.x
> > > branches, as these hold all the external libraries required to build,
> > test
> > > and/or run a copy from that branch in a separate environment.
> > >
> > >
> > > So the questions are:
> > >
> > >
> > >    - are we going to delete the external libraries from the branches,
> or
> > >    - are we going to delete the entire branches?
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe we should have this addressed in order to provide the greater
> > > community with a clear answer as what to expect regarding future
> > adoptions
> > > and/or upgrades.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >
> > > Pierre Smits
> > >
> > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> > > OFBiz based solutions & services
> > >
> > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> > > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> > >
> >
>

[Pierre Smits]

Hi Taher,

It seems you did not read the entire posting.

The ASF doesn't object from having external libraries (3rd party jar files)
in the convenience downloads projects make available. This is what OFBiz
does also.

If there is a problem within the release process, regarding the external
libraries, then there are more ways around that than to fix something that
is not broken.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Taher Alkhateeb <
[hidden email]> wrote:

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

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

I went thru all the comments in this thread and it seems to me that the
summary that Sharan provided based on the discussion on the user list is a
good way to go to deal with Pierre's and other's concerns and with the
concerns of the developers: it seems we are all on the same page.

Jacopo

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
wrote:

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

[Sharan-F]

Hi Pierre

I've responded to your initial questions but it sounds like you want to discuss something other than the support of 14.12 and 15.12 so I'll start a separate thread for the support discussion.

Thanks
Sharan

On 2016-07-11 10:55 (+0200), Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Sharan Foga <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ...
> In fact the main discussion that I wanted to start here was more related
> to support for 14.12 and 15.12.  As we are in transition to gradle, we need
> to define a time period for backporting bug fixes into these unreleased
> branches.
>
> As an initial suggestion – would 12 months be a good timeframe to work
> with. What do other people think?
>

12 months seems a reasonable timeframe to me.

Jacopo

[Gil Portenseigne]

Hi Sharan,

Thanks for the sum-up, that's quite i had got in mind.

I think that 12 month seems OK,

Gil

On 11/07/2016 10:33, Sharan Foga wrote:

As an initial suggestion – would 12 months be a good timeframe to work with. What do other people think?

[Pierre Smits]

I just want unambiguous communications from the project to its community
(contributors and adopters).

Messages as 'what I understand' are personal viewpoints, and  - like other
posting that starts in similar ways - dilute perceptions of the project's
direction with respect to its products.

If all are on the same page, then there is some shared agreement on the
conclusion derived from the thread. This means that an explicit statement
can be made by the PMC regarding the short term action and sent to the
entire community (the user ml), so that every contributor and adopters can
determine what to expect from the project.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
[hidden email]> wrote:

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

[Jacopo Cappellato-5]

Thanks for your suggestion, we will definitely make sure that our website
will provide the correct information in a clear way.

Jacopo

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
wrote:

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

[Pierre Smits]

Thanks Jacopo.

Now that we have the initial intent of this thread resolved, shall we
continue the suggestion by Sharan regarding backporting bug fixes from
trunk to the r14.12 and 15.12 branched in a new thread?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for your suggestion, we will definitely make sure that our website
> will provide the correct information in a clear way.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I just want unambiguous communications from the project to its community
> > (contributors and adopters).
> >
> > Messages as 'what I understand' are personal viewpoints, and  - like
> other
> > posting that starts in similar ways - dilute perceptions of the project's
> > direction with respect to its products.
> >
> > If all are on the same page, then there is some shared agreement on the
> > conclusion derived from the thread. This means that an explicit statement
> > can be made by the PMC regarding the short term action and sent to the
> > entire community (the user ml), so that every contributor and adopters
> can
> > determine what to expect from the project.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> > OFBiz based solutions & services
> >
> > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I went thru all the comments in this thread and it seems to me that the
> > > summary that Sharan provided based on the discussion on the user list
> is
> > a
> > > good way to go to deal with Pierre's and other's concerns and with the
> > > concerns of the developers: it seems we are all on the same page.
> > >
> > > Jacopo
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Taher,
> > > >
> > > > It seems you did not read the entire posting.
> > > >
> > > > The ASF doesn't object from having external libraries (3rd party jar
> > > files)
> > > > in the convenience downloads projects make available. This is what
> > OFBiz
> > > > does also.
> > > >
> > > > If there is a problem within the release process, regarding the
> > external
> > > > libraries, then there are more ways around that than to fix something
> > > that
> > > > is not broken.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Pierre Smits
> > > >
> > > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> > > > OFBiz based solutions & services
> > > >
> > > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> > > > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Taher Alkhateeb <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Pierre,
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems you did not read the entire sentence, so I will write here
> > > again
> > > > > from the JIRA you mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > From Jacques: "There is no problems having an external jar (and
> even
> > > > more)
> > > > > in the repo. The pb is only when we release"
> > > > >
> > > > > This is exactly what Sharan is saying above. You can keep Jars in
> > > > branches,
> > > > > "Releases" are where you are not supposed to keep binaries.
> > > > >
> > > > > HTH
> > > > >
> > > > > Taher Alkhateeb
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Pierre Smits <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jacques posted this recently in a JIRA issue:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7768?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15369886#comment-15369886
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stating that there is no issue with having 3rd party libraries
> (jar
> > > > > files)
> > > > > > in the repo.
> > > > > > Also the ASF does not object to have 3rd party libraries in the
> > > > > convenience
> > > > > > downloads that the project makes available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pierre Smits
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> > > > > > OFBiz based solutions & services
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> > > > > > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Sharan Foga <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Pierre
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for starting the discussion. I had expected to start it
> > this
> > > > > week,
> > > > > > > giving us time to continue stabilising and consolidating the
> > gradle
> > > > > work
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the trunk from last week. (Also a minor correction – I
> > 'suggested'
> > > > not
> > > > > > > 'promised').
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyway my suggestion was to take the discussion to this list to
> > > talk
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > the next steps. So just as a recap from the user mailing list,
> my
> > > > > summary
> > > > > > > of the discussion there included the following points that are
> > > > relevant
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the 14.12 and 15.12 unreleased branches.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) - We would not backport any of the gradle changes into the
> > > 14.12.
> > > > or
> > > > > > > 15.12
> > > > > > > branches because it would cause instability
> > > > > > > 2) - We would leave 14.12 and 15.12 as unreleased branches as
> > they
> > > > are
> > > > > > now
> > > > > > > (and not
> > > > > > > make them into releases as to do that we would need to remove
> all
> > > the
> > > > > jar
> > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > and this would create instability).
> > > > > > > 3) - The benefits for our community are that developers and
> > service
> > > > > > > providers will
> > > > > > > still have access to the complete codebase for 14.12 and 15.12
> > > > > including
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > special purpose components to be able to support their client
> > base.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My understanding was that the community did reach a consensus
> on
> > > > these
> > > > > > > points. No-one responded to correct, update nor oppose any of
> > these
> > > > > > points.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both of your questions are answered by the second point. So
> based
> > > on
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > the responses to your questions are:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - No, we are not going to delete the external libraries from
> the
> > > > > > > unreleased branches 14.12 and 15.12  (if they remain as
> > unreleased
> > > > > > branches
> > > > > > > the there is no need to remove the external jars)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - No, we are not going to delete the entire unreleased branches
> > > 14.12
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > 15.12 (we are leaving these available so that our community
> will
> > > > still
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > access to the complete codebase including the special purpose
> > > > > components)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In fact the main discussion that I wanted to start here was
> more
> > > > > related
> > > > > > > to support for 14.12 and 15.12.  As we are in transition to
> > gradle,
> > > > we
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > to define a time period for backporting bug fixes into these
> > > > unreleased
> > > > > > > branches.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As an initial suggestion – would 12 months be a good timeframe
> to
> > > > work
> > > > > > > with. What do other people think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Sharan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2016-07-10 10:48 (+0200), Pierre Smits <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sharan promised the greater community in the '[*[DISCUSSION]*
> > > > > > > *Anticipate*
> > > > > > > >  the *end* of *life* of the *13.07* branch and backport some
> > > > non-bug
> > > > > > > > related changes to the 14.12 and 15.12 branches
> > > > > > > > <http://markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf>' starting via
> > > > > > > > http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/nqo5xacngpspytvf ) that
> the
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > would continue in the dev ml.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I haven't seen her start that discussion, I will:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Given that Sharan made clear that external libraries as per
> ASF
> > > > > > > guidelines
> > > > > > > > and rulings, we need to decide what to do with the r14.x and
> > the
> > > > > r15.x
> > > > > > > > branches, as these hold all the external libraries required
> to
> > > > build,
> > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > and/or run a copy from that branch in a separate environment.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So the questions are:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >    - are we going to delete the external libraries from the
> > > > branches,
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >    - are we going to delete the entire branches?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe we should have this addressed in order to provide
> the
> > > > > greater
> > > > > > > > community with a clear answer as what to expect regarding
> > future
> > > > > > > adoptions
> > > > > > > > and/or upgrades.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pierre Smits
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> > > > > > > > OFBiz based solutions & services
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> > > > > > > > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Pierre, All,

There are 3 aspects here:

 1. Repositories, you can do almost what you want, the ASF does not care if you put jar, exe, dll, youNameIt... there (kidding with dll ;))
 2. Source releases (required by ASF and must not contain external jar)
 3. Binaries releases (required by ASF and can contain external jar, this is what you call "convenience downloads projects make available" There are
    usually provided by a 3rd party and can be hosted on ASF servers. But are not, in any ways, official ASF releases.

At least we should all use the same vocabulary (I used the one ASF uses), if we want to understand each other. What is the problem?

Thanks

Jacques


Le 11/07/2016 à 10:55, Pierre Smits a écrit :

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

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 11/07/2016 à 19:46, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> Pierre, All,
>
> There are 3 aspects here:
>
> 1. Repositories, you can do almost what you want, the ASF does not care if you put jar, exe, dll, youNameIt... there (kidding with dll ;))
> 2. Source releases (required by ASF and must not contain external jar)
> 3. Binaries releases (required by ASF and can contain external jar, this is what you call "convenience downloads projects make available" There are
Argh, typo :/
     3. Binaries releases (*NOT* required by ASF and can contain external jar, this is what you call "convenience downloads projects make available"
There are
jacques

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