OFBiz › OFBiz - User

Improvements to PROJECTMGR and SCRUM

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

1 message

Pierre Smits

Improvements to PROJECTMGR and SCRUM

Scott, All,

Today I registered a new issue regarding the topic above. See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5797 about separating time
registration from these components. I seek opinions to gain consensus about
the matter before work is started on the code changes.

Yes, I have been thinking about the code contributions regarding cost price
transactions on time/material projects, regarding (third party)
authorization sheets for time spent on project tasks. But time constraints
have been working against acting on it. We all have busy schedules, don't
we? Nevertheless, it is not of the radar.

Regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Scott Gray <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Do you have a link to the discussion they had Pierre? It would be
> interesting to read more of the context. Although even with one active
> contributor, it sounds like it is still doing better than our projectmgr
> component which has none.
>
> And yes it is quite true that projects have a decent amount of flexibility
> in what they can and cannot do. I was simply saying that community
> diversity is a major factor in considering top-level project proposals and
> commonly (but apparently not always) in sub-projects as well, I think the
> reasons for this are self explanatory but yes exceptions are obviously also
> made sometimes.
>
> I just simply don't believe that our current approach could be so
> inhibiting that the component just sits there with no consistently active
> contributors. Maybe the component needs more marketing? Perhaps those
> with an interest in the component could consider writing some blog posts or
> mentioning it in relevant social media, forums, mailing lists etc., writing
> additional documentation may help too. Perhaps you (Pierre) could consider
> contributing some of the customizations you mentioned having made. My
> point is that there is much that could be done by anyone in the community
> who cares enough to do it. Not every problem can be laid solely at the
> feet of the PMC (IMO very few actually can, but we obviously disagree on
> that).
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 3/10/2014, at 9:45 pm, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > That does work for other top level projects under the ASF umbrella.
> > Recently a discussion is started in the mailing list of Apache Directory
> > server to adopt a new - external - component as a sub project (the do
> > everything in sub projects), that has only 1 committer and 1 contributor.
> > There you also can't talk about having a great adoption within the
> > community of that project, because it isn't there yet. But there are
> > sentiments in favour of it, as it will expand the feature set of the
> works
> > of the project and the visibility of the project itself.
> >
> > When you look at the CouchDb project, you'll see that they have dedicated
> > mailing lists for various themes. You'll see that anything is possible
> > under the ASF umbrella when you take a closer look.
> >
> > The Apache way is not to restricting people willing to do stuff, but to
> > enable them. And often you need to promote to get the attention of
> > contributors. Downplaying etc. does the opposite.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> > Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> > Based Manufacturing, Professional
> > Services and Retail & Trade
> > http://www.orrtiz.com
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Scott Gray <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> Currently, the connection between individual modules and the people who
> >> care is a bit fuzzy and has resulted in decisions being taken by people
> who
> >> do not have a real interest in the particular modules that are being
> >> dropped. They have no way to connect with the interested parties or
> even to
> >> be sure about who they are.
> >>> One of the values of sub-projects is that you capture groups that have
> a
> >> narrow interest in particular areas but are not able to commit to the
> >> entire project.
> >>
> >> We have mailing lists and jira to gauge interest in a specific
> component.
> >> Code contributions in particular are very useful in determining
> interest,
> >> unless you're suggesting that the component is perfect and no further
> work
> >> is required. Everything in OFBiz has room for improvement and a lack of
> >> contributions is very much an indicator of a lack of interest in my
> opinion
> >> and experience with this project.
> >>
> >> It doesn't make any sense to create sub-projects in the hope that
> someone
> >> might show up and start community building. The ASF doesn't work that
> way
> >> for top-level projects and by the DB Project link you sent earlier
> implies
> >> they don't work that way for sub-projects either. A community must
> exist
> >> around a given component before it can have any hope of standing on its
> own.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On 3/10/2014, at 7:50 pm, Ron Wheeler <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Are there a lot of outstanding JIRA issues that users want fixed?
> >>> It is not inconceivable that a module works as required.
> >>> I am not sure that measuring the usefulness of a module by the number
> of
> >> bugs or deficiencies found recently is accurate.
> >>>
> >>> It seems to have been tested with the trunk as the core OFBiz has
> >> evolved.
> >>>
> >>> It appears that it may need some testing with the ccore 13.07.01
> Release
> >> before PROJECTMGR can be either said to work as is with 13.07.01 or
> >> released as a new version of PROJECTMGR that does work with 13.07.01.
> >>>
> >>> If there was a sub-project with a following, there would be a group of
> >> people who want it to work and would be prepared to do what was
> required to
> >> keep the module functioning.
> >>> It would be quite clear to the people interested in PROJECTMGR that it
> >> was their responsibility to make sure that it was functional with
> 13.07.01.
> >>> Currently, the connection between individual modules and the people who
> >> care is a bit fuzzy and has resulted in decisions being taken by people
> who
> >> do not have a real interest in the particular modules that are being
> >> dropped. They have no way to connect with the interested parties or
> even to
> >> be sure about who they are.
> >>> One of the values of sub-projects is that you capture groups that have
> a
> >> narrow interest in particular areas but are not able to commit to the
> >> entire project.
> >>> The people working on the release of the core also have a clear project
> >> management group in each sub-project to consult when core functionality
> >> will affect individual modules or when planning a release and want to
> let
> >> the sub-project teams know that they must take some action in order to
> keep
> >> their module functional.
> >>>
> >>> It is not inconceivable that some sub-projects will die due to lack of
> >> interest.
> >>> PROJECTMGR seems to have some life in it but without a formal
> >> sub-project structure it is hard to judge except from ML discussions and
> >> recent activity.
> >>>
> >>> Ron
> >>>
> >>> On 02/10/2014 3:02 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
> >>>> Surely the first step in considering a specialized component for
> >> sub-project creation would be the level of activity surrounding the
> >> component?
> >>>>
> >>>> Looking at the history of the projectmgr component I see 12 commits in
> >> the last TWO years 8 of which were global changes that coincidentally
> >> happened to touch on that component (translation work, global
> refactorings
> >> etc.). This leaves only 4 commits specific to the component and even
> those
> >> are minor UI adjustments.
> >>>>
> >>>> To be considered as a potential sub-project I would expect to see a
> >> hive of activity around that component with contributors specializing in
> >> solid contributions to further enhance it. "Build it and they will
> come"
> >> is not a valid approach to sub-project creation.
> >>>>
> >>>> If this component is so important to some of you, why are you not
> >> contributing to its enhancement?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Scott
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/10/2014, at 2:56 am, Ron Wheeler <[hidden email]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Of course, I see a lot of benefit in the Apache approach of
> >> sub-projects but perhaps the current group of committers should take
> some
> >> time to consider this and talk to the Apache Mentors assigned to the
> >> project as well as some of the project chairpersons from projects where
> >> sub-projects are in use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One of the advantages of being an Apache project is that there are
> >> many things for which there is an "Apache Way" and there are people in
> the
> >> broader Apache community that can provide information and guidance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To Jacopo's point about trust.
> >>>>> I may trust someone to do one thing but not another.
> >>>>> I may trust someone with a critical task that I would not entrust to
> >> another person who might be technically capable of doing it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As a project manager, I may trust someone to work on a particular
> part
> >> of an application but not on the data access.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the project to grow, the people working on the framework are
> going
> >> to have to get used to the idea that total strangers will be committing
> >> code to the project.
> >>>>> The sub-project structure allows this to happen in a controlled way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It also allows sub-projects to attract the "right" mix of people
> which
> >> would be a totally different set of skills than the Framework project
> would
> >> want.
> >>>>> Each sub-project will develop a team personality based on the
> >> sub-project's mission and the type of people required to implement the
> >> mission.
> >>>>> I would expect the framework sub-project to be "hard core" technical
> >> people who know a lot about databases, security, entity modeling whereas
> >> the e-Commerce team will have people who are very knowledgeable about
> >> taxation, payment system integration, shopping cart design, user
> >> experience, and end-user documentation.
> >>>>> The Project Management sub-project will attract people who know a lot
> >> about billing for consulting companies, accounting firms and legal
> offices
> >> as well project management, workflow, issue tracking, user interfaces,
> web
> >> services, etc.
> >>>>> I would expect some overlap since many of the people here are very
> >> senior and have skills in multiple areas but I suspect that most new
> people
> >> will start in one sub-project and "cut their teeth" there before joining
> >> another.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If it is done right it also makes everyone's job a lot easier and
> >> should reduce the amount of ML traffic for each person.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ron
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 02/10/2014 9:22 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>>>> In my opinion we should avoid reconsidering the idea of creating
> >> committers with limited access; instead I would prefer to invite
> committers
> >> when we trust them as individuals, when they have demonstrated the right
> >> attitude and skills to work in our community etc... and demonstrate
> enough
> >> technical skills for the work they have to do; even if it is limited to
> a
> >> subset of the OFBiz codebase they will get full access to the repos but
> of
> >> course they will limit their field of action to the area they know,
> without
> >> requiring us to enforce commit rights limitations. As I said this can
> only
> >> work if we trust them 100% as persons at first.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 2, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's an interesting idea.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now it also means more administration and we are already a bit
> >> sparse on the volunteering front.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A simpler solution the OFBiz project used was to allow write access
> >> to only parts of the repo.
> >>>>>>> This was before the Apache era. We gave up this way of doing
> because
> >> it was not the Apache way.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have not read it all yet but for instance I read in
> >> https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html
> >>>>>>> <<There may be extraordinary cases where we want limited
> >> work-related commit access. This will be resolved during the vote
> >> discussion. >>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't know how technically this is possible in OFBiz trunk and
> >> branches, apart maybe asking the infra team? Which would most probably
> >> faces a veto...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Le 01/10/2014 16:46, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
> >>>>>>>> The sub-project is a very useful Apache tool for helping projects
> >> grow.
> >>>>>>>> http://db.apache.org/newproject.html is interesting reading.
> >>>>>>>> http://ant.apache.org/antlibs/ very minimal description about Ant
> >> sub-projects but we all use their work.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Close-of-Apache-Lucene-s-Open-Relevance-sub-project-td4141160.html
> >> a note about the official closure of a sub-project - very clear about
> why
> >> and what closure means.
> >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Ivy another popular
> >> sub-project. Description implies that it started in incubation and
> >> graduated to a top-level package and then became a sub-project of Ant.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> http://icodebythesea.blogspot.ca/2009/04/apache-servicemix-kernel-subproject.html
> >> is an example of a sub-project moving between two top-level projects.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The sub-project structure allows for more specialization within
> the
> >> project resources so that people who are wizards with databases,
> kernels,
> >> etc get to worry about data access, performance, scalability,
> reliability,
> >> security while others who have more domain interest get to worry about
> >> features, usability, graphic design, workflow, reporting without
> getting in
> >> each other's hair.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It also ensures a clearer demarcation between framework, core ERP
> >> and modules.
> >>>>>>>> I suspect that it would clean up project communication since
> people
> >> could subscribe to the sub-project lists that pertained to their
> interests.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It might be easier for the existing community to accept new
> >> committers if the new people were part of a sub-project and were not
> >> committing to the particular codebase (framework, core, etc.) that the
> >> current committers are working on.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It probably would help clarify the documentation since there would
> >> be a much clearer separation of framework from core from modules since
> each
> >> sub-project would have its own section in the project documentation.
> >>>>>>>> Each sub-project would have a much better defined target audience
> >> so writing docs would be a bit simpler and the language and terminology
> >> could be more relevant to the target audience.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 01/10/2014 10:17 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Ron,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In the past there was a WIKI page decribing who was interested
> and
> >> who was willing to work on what. I don't know whether that page still
> >> exists.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In the past we also had a system of having committers dedicated
> >> and committed to a subset of the trunk. This should still be feasible.
> But
> >> for that you need more committers. And to get more committers, this
> project
> >> needs to solicit and accept more.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> >>>>>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >>>>>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >>>>>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Ron Wheeler <
> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A defined method of deciding what moves from the trunk to a
> >>>>>>>>> release would solve this.
> >>>>>>>>> Back to my previous comment about 1 person to test and 1 person
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>> fix bugs (could be the same person I suppose) would be a good
> >>>>>>>>> starting minimum.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 01/10/2014 2:56 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The excuse of using PROJECTMgr in an older branch (12.x,
> the
> >>>>>>>>> latest stable
> >>>>>>>>> release) and testing it against trunk and therefor not
> >>>>>>>>> including it in a
> >>>>>>>>> release of a newer branch, is a lame one.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We are diligent about this, meaning that we do follow up
> >>>>>>>>> against any
> >>>>>>>>> potential new release branch in order to be able to migrate
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>> the newer
> >>>>>>>>> branch when there is something released.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://ORRTIZ.COM> <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> >>>>>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >>>>>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >>>>>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The fact that someone is using it in an older branch
> and
> >>>>>>>>> testing it in
> >>>>>>>>> trunk is not enough to guarantee it works well with
> >> 13.07;
> >>>>>>>>> the trunk and
> >>>>>>>>> 13.07 are very different codebases.
> >>>>>>>>> Additionally, the "projectmgr" component has 0 unit
> >> tests;
> >>>>>>>>> I am not sure
> >>>>>>>>> about about its stability, but for example comments in
> >>>>>>>>> code like the
> >>>>>>>>> following don't make me feel super confident:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> One more point to note: since the component has not
> been
> >>>>>>>>> in the 13.07
> >>>>>>>>> branch, it didn't undergo the 1-year long stabilization
> >>>>>>>>> phase where only
> >>>>>>>>> bug-fixes are backported: for example, one month ago,
> >> with
> >>>>>>>>> revision
> >>>>>>>>> 1618313, it was modified by a big commit to replace a
> >>>>>>>>> series of Freemarker
> >>>>>>>>> built-ins operation that we decided to not backport to
> >>>>>>>>> 13.07 but only keep
> >>>>>>>>> in the trunk.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 30, 2014, at 11:19 PM, Ron Wheeler
> >>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, as far as is known from Pierre's testing, there
> >> is
> >>>>>>>>> no work required
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> to "stabilize and bug fix" the module prior to
> including
> >>>>>>>>> it in 13.07.01?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Anyone else have any comments on the work required
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>> include it in
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 13.07.01?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 30/09/2014 5:13 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ron, All,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We use the latest released branch, meaning
> 12.x.
> >>>>>>>>> We don't expose our
> >>>>>>>>> customers to an unstable unreleased branch,
> that
> >>>>>>>>> is still undergoing
> >>>>>>>>> significant changes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But, we test our solutions against trunk. This
> >>>>>>>>> enables us to identify
> >>>>>>>>> issues and register them in JIRA. And supply
> >>>>>>>>> patches when workload
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> allows
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So yes, PROJECTMGR, SCRUM, etc work also in
> >> r13.x
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://ORRTIZ.COM>
> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> >>>>>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >>>>>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >>>>>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Ron Wheeler <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Are you using it with a 12.04 or 13.xx?
> >>>>>>>>> What work is required to get it into 13.07?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>>>>> On 30/09/2014 3:06 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I also have a vested interest in
> >>>>>>>>> keeping this (PROJECTMGR) in the
> >>>>>>>>> releases. It is part of our ORRTIZ:COM
> >>>>>>>>> solution portfolio for our
> >>>>>>>>> customers
> >>>>>>>>> and we use it internally. And I have
> >>>>>>>>> contributed to the improvement
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> component.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We, at ORRTIZ:COM, even use an
> extension
> >>>>>>>>> to the code base to ensure
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>> also works for fixed price and internal
> >>>>>>>>> projects. This extension
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> includes
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> generating the gl transactions
> regarding
> >>>>>>>>> the cost price of each hour
> >>>>>>>>> registered regarding a project.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We also use the LDAP component to
> >> connect
> >>>>>>>>> to our directory server
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (Apache
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Directory Server).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://ORRTIZ.COM>
> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> >>>>>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >>>>>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >>>>>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Ron
> >> Wheeler
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <rwheeler@artifact-software.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> It would be for me since it is one
> >> of
> >>>>>>>>> the components that I want to
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> use.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps the more knowledgeable
> >> people
> >>>>>>>>> might want to share a bit more
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the background of the feature.
> >>>>>>>>> Is it in 12.xx.xx?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Is it currently in the 13.07 branch
> >>>>>>>>> and therefor currently part of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 13.07 versions that people have put
> >> in
> >>>>>>>>> production or is it just in
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> trunk that people are putting into
> >>>>>>>>> production?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What are the issues that need to be
> >>>>>>>>> addressed before it is
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "stabilized
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> bug fixed"?
> >>>>>>>>> Do any of these issues pose a
> >>>>>>>>> significant risk to the stability
> of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> rest of the functionality?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Is anyone using it in production?
> >> What
> >>>>>>>>> are their opinions of the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> state of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the code and the degree of risk?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Is anyone prepared to take on the
> >> task
> >>>>>>>>> of getting it "stabilized and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> bug
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> fixed" to a point where it can be
> >>>>>>>>> safely included?
> >>>>>>>>> What is the estimate of the minimum
> >>>>>>>>> effort required?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 30/09/2014 9:58 AM, Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why not deploy it as another
> >>>>>>>>> hot-deploy component? Is it
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> considered a
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "core" ERP component?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:59
> AM,
> >>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits <
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Back then there were
> already
> >>>>>>>>> strong objections to
> >> excluding
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> components
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>> the release. I recall that
> >>>>>>>>> Hans also wanted to keep
> >> the SCRUM
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> component
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> the release, as well as
> >> there
> >>>>>>>>> were proponents for BIRT
> >> and other
> >>>>>>>>> components.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> These are good additions to
> >>>>>>>>> the feature set of OFBiz
> and
> >>>>>>>>> may be in
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> already by community
> >> members.
> >>>>>>>>> It would be best that you
> >>>>>>>>> solicit the
> >>>>>>>>> advice
> >>>>>>>>> of the entire community
> >> before
> >>>>>>>>> a decision on excluding
> >> components
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>> release is taken. This
> >> affects
> >>>>>>>>> more participants in this
> >> project
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>> you and the committers.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM
> >>>>>>>>> <http://ORRTIZ.COM>
> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> >>>>>>>>> Services & Solutions for
> >> Cloud-
> >>>>>>>>> Based Manufacturing,
> >> Professional
> >>>>>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at
> >> 11:49
> >>>>>>>>> AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ok, got it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The release process
> that
> >>>>>>>>> the OFBiz community is
> >>>>>>>>> following is
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> based on
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> feature freeze phase,
> >> that
> >>>>>>>>> for the 13.07 branch
> >>>>>>>>> started more than
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> year
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ago, during which only
> bug
> >>>>>>>>> fixes are backported.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is done in order
> to
> >>>>>>>>> stabilize the branch
> >>>>>>>>> before an official
> >>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>> is done. Since the
> >>>>>>>>> "projectmgr" component
> >> has
> >>>>>>>>> never been part of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 13.07
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> branch then it may be
> >> unsafe
> >>>>>>>>> to include it now just
> >> before the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> issued. It would be
> >> better
> >>>>>>>>> to discuss its
> inclusion
> >>>>>>>>> in the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> upcoming
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>> release branch where it
> >>>>>>>>> could be stabilized and
> >>>>>>>>> bug fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ron Wheeler
> >>> President
> >>> Artifact Software Inc
> >>> email: [hidden email]
> >>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> >>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>