Re: svn commit: r816083 [1/4] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/commonext/ applications/commonext/config/ applications/commonext/data/ applications/commonext/data/helpdata/ applications/commonext/documents/ applications/commonext/script/ applications/commone...

[Ashish Vijaywargiya-5]

+1 for Scott's comment.

Consider the case:
Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on the trunk
and instead of that I start attaching the patch on JIRA.
Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the fastest
picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:

"Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The new
feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will be sponsored by
HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
On the first time committer won't mind writing other company name but if
this is the case that will happen on regular basis then he may(chances
are more) start thinking that I am committing the code and also
mentioning the name of other company. He may come into dilemma to decide
whether this is right or not to mention other company name. Result can
be the reduction in the contribution?

If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if committer
miss putting company name then I or someone else can ask to put the
company name.

I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit logs. So
here is the *BIG*  -1 for putting company name in commit logs.
Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client and your
client agrees to see his/ her company name then committer can mention
the name of client company in the commit log.

--
Ashish


Scott Gray wrote:

> Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it every in
> log which is what could very well happen once the ball gets rolling.  
> I'm not saying it's the end of the world, I'm just saying I would have
> preferred to keep things the way they are now.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that isn't what
>> is happening here.
>>
>> In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If tastefully done
>> they are effective to. If done in a tacky or flamboyant way, chances
>> are people won't appreciate it much.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other hand, I
>>> can see a potential for the commit logs being turned into commercials:
>>>
>>> "XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open For
>>> Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
>>>
>>> or something like that.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>> Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any problem with
>>>> this. Attribution to persons is important, and I'd say even
>>>> mandatory, and by the pattern established with the individual and
>>>> company contributor license agreements I have no issue with
>>>> attribution to employers of contributors if the individual was paid
>>>> to create something.
>>>> Attribution is one of the motives people and companies have for
>>>> working on this software and contributing to the project, so I
>>>> would NEVER complain because a person took credit for work they did
>>>> or a company took credit for work they sponsored.
>>>> -David
>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by attributing a
>>>>> commit to your company within the commit message, OFBiz is
>>>>> business software and of course a large majority of the commits
>>>>> are funded by various companies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I don't think this a practice that we would want to see
>>>>> continued.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
>>>>>> New Revision: 816083
>>>>>>
>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>> added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed data only.
>>>>>> After the required data is created with this component it is
>>>>>> possible to enter a salesorder and quickship it and create an
>>>>>> invoice successfully. The 'setup' component will only show in the
>>>>>> tab selection if there is no accounting organization. Check the
>>>>>> ofbiz document for more info or look in the file
>>>>>> applications/commonext/documents/Setup.xml. Created and sponsored
>>>>>> by Antwebsystems. Programmed by employee Tukkata
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Ashish Vijaywargiya" <[hidden email]>

> +1 for Scott's comment.
>
> Consider the case:
> Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on the trunk
> and instead of that I start attaching the patch on JIRA.
> Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the fastest
> picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
> So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:
>
> "Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The new
> feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will be sponsored by
> HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
> On the first time committer won't mind writing other company name but if
> this is the case that will happen on regular basis then he may(chances
> are more) start thinking that I am committing the code and also
> mentioning the name of other company. He may come into dilemma to decide
> whether this is right or not to mention other company name. Result can
> be the reduction in the contribution?
>
> If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if committer
> miss putting company name then I or someone else can ask to put the
> company name.
>
> I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit logs. So
> here is the *BIG*  -1 for putting company name in commit logs.
> Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client and your
> client agrees to see his/ her company name then committer can mention
> the name of client company in the commit log.

+1 for the -1

Jacques

 

> --
> Ashish
>
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it every in
>> log which is what could very well happen once the ball gets rolling.  
>> I'm not saying it's the end of the world, I'm just saying I would have
>> preferred to keep things the way they are now.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that isn't what
>>> is happening here.
>>>
>>> In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If tastefully done
>>> they are effective to. If done in a tacky or flamboyant way, chances
>>> are people won't appreciate it much.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other hand, I
>>>> can see a potential for the commit logs being turned into commercials:
>>>>
>>>> "XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open For
>>>> Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
>>>>
>>>> or something like that.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any problem with
>>>>> this. Attribution to persons is important, and I'd say even
>>>>> mandatory, and by the pattern established with the individual and
>>>>> company contributor license agreements I have no issue with
>>>>> attribution to employers of contributors if the individual was paid
>>>>> to create something.
>>>>> Attribution is one of the motives people and companies have for
>>>>> working on this software and contributing to the project, so I
>>>>> would NEVER complain because a person took credit for work they did
>>>>> or a company took credit for work they sponsored.
>>>>> -David
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by attributing a
>>>>>> commit to your company within the commit message, OFBiz is
>>>>>> business software and of course a large majority of the commits
>>>>>> are funded by various companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I don't think this a practice that we would want to see
>>>>>> continued.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
>>>>>>> New Revision: 816083
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>> added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed data only.
>>>>>>> After the required data is created with this component it is
>>>>>>> possible to enter a salesorder and quickship it and create an
>>>>>>> invoice successfully. The 'setup' component will only show in the
>>>>>>> tab selection if there is no accounting organization. Check the
>>>>>>> ofbiz document for more info or look in the file
>>>>>>> applications/commonext/documents/Setup.xml. Created and sponsored
>>>>>>> by Antwebsystems. Programmed by employee Tukkata
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

Who said anything about requiring the company name? IMO both not  
allowing and requiring company names are not worth trying to force  
other people to do. In other words, my vote is no company name police,  
either way.

-David


On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:

> +1 for Scott's comment.
>
> Consider the case:
> Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on the  
> trunk and instead of that I start attaching the patch on JIRA.
> Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the fastest  
> picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
> So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:
>
> "Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The new  
> feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will be  
> sponsored by HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
> On the first time committer won't mind writing other company name  
> but if this is the case that will happen on regular basis then he may
> (chances are more) start thinking that I am committing the code and  
> also mentioning the name of other company. He may come into dilemma  
> to decide whether this is right or not to mention other company  
> name. Result can be the reduction in the contribution?
>
> If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if  
> committer miss putting company name then I or someone else can ask  
> to put the company name.
>
> I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit logs.  
> So here is the *BIG*  -1 for putting company name in commit logs.
> Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client and  
> your client agrees to see his/ her company name then committer can  
> mention the name of client company in the commit log.
>
> --
> Ashish
>
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it every  
>> in log which is what could very well happen once the ball gets  
>> rolling.  I'm not saying it's the end of the world, I'm just saying  
>> I would have preferred to keep things the way they are now.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that isn't  
>>> what is happening here.
>>>
>>> In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If tastefully done  
>>> they are effective to. If done in a tacky or flamboyant way,  
>>> chances are people won't appreciate it much.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other hand,  
>>>> I can see a potential for the commit logs being turned into  
>>>> commercials:
>>>>
>>>> "XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open For  
>>>> Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
>>>>
>>>> or something like that.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any problem  
>>>>> with this. Attribution to persons is important, and I'd say even  
>>>>> mandatory, and by the pattern established with the individual  
>>>>> and company contributor license agreements I have no issue with  
>>>>> attribution to employers of contributors if the individual was  
>>>>> paid to create something.
>>>>> Attribution is one of the motives people and companies have for  
>>>>> working on this software and contributing to the project, so I  
>>>>> would NEVER complain because a person took credit for work they  
>>>>> did or a company took credit for work they sponsored.
>>>>> -David
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by attributing a  
>>>>>> commit to your company within the commit message, OFBiz is  
>>>>>> business software and of course a large majority of the commits  
>>>>>> are funded by various companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I don't think this a practice that we would want to  
>>>>>> see continued.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
>>>>>>> New Revision: 816083
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>> added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed data  
>>>>>>> only. After the required data is created with this component  
>>>>>>> it is possible to enter a salesorder and quickship it and  
>>>>>>> create an invoice successfully. The 'setup' component will  
>>>>>>> only show in the tab selection if there is no accounting  
>>>>>>> organization. Check the ofbiz document for more info or look  
>>>>>>> in the file applications/commonext/documents/Setup.xml.  
>>>>>>> Created and sponsored by Antwebsystems. Programmed by employee  
>>>>>>> Tukkata
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>

[Scott Gray-2]

I think Ashish was pointing out that if a contributor supplies a patch  
then they could request that their company is attributed in the commit  
log.  A committer would then be required to do so in order to be fair  
to the contributor since committers are allowed to attribute their own  
company for their commits.

Also does the committer also get attribution for reviewing and  
committing community contributions?
"New feature XYZ contributed by Mr. ABC funded by DEF Corp.  Review  
and commit funded by GHI Corp.

Regards
Scott

On 18/09/2009, at 7:29 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> Who said anything about requiring the company name? IMO both not  
> allowing and requiring company names are not worth trying to force  
> other people to do. In other words, my vote is no company name  
> police, either way.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>
>> +1 for Scott's comment.
>>
>> Consider the case:
>> Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on the  
>> trunk and instead of that I start attaching the patch on JIRA.
>> Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the fastest  
>> picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
>> So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:
>>
>> "Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The new  
>> feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will be  
>> sponsored by HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
>> On the first time committer won't mind writing other company name  
>> but if this is the case that will happen on regular basis then he  
>> may(chances are more) start thinking that I am committing the code  
>> and also mentioning the name of other company. He may come into  
>> dilemma to decide whether this is right or not to mention other  
>> company name. Result can be the reduction in the contribution?
>>
>> If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if  
>> committer miss putting company name then I or someone else can ask  
>> to put the company name.
>>
>> I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit logs.  
>> So here is the *BIG*  -1 for putting company name in commit logs.
>> Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client and  
>> your client agrees to see his/ her company name then committer can  
>> mention the name of client company in the commit log.
>>
>> --
>> Ashish
>>
>>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>> Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it every  
>>> in log which is what could very well happen once the ball gets  
>>> rolling.  I'm not saying it's the end of the world, I'm just  
>>> saying I would have preferred to keep things the way they are now.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that isn't  
>>>> what is happening here.
>>>>
>>>> In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If tastefully  
>>>> done they are effective to. If done in a tacky or flamboyant way,  
>>>> chances are people won't appreciate it much.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other  
>>>>> hand, I can see a potential for the commit logs being turned  
>>>>> into commercials:
>>>>>
>>>>> "XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open For  
>>>>> Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
>>>>>
>>>>> or something like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>> Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any problem  
>>>>>> with this. Attribution to persons is important, and I'd say  
>>>>>> even mandatory, and by the pattern established with the  
>>>>>> individual and company contributor license agreements I have no  
>>>>>> issue with attribution to employers of contributors if the  
>>>>>> individual was paid to create something.
>>>>>> Attribution is one of the motives people and companies have for  
>>>>>> working on this software and contributing to the project, so I  
>>>>>> would NEVER complain because a person took credit for work they  
>>>>>> did or a company took credit for work they sponsored.
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by attributing a  
>>>>>>> commit to your company within the commit message, OFBiz is  
>>>>>>> business software and of course a large majority of the  
>>>>>>> commits are funded by various companies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I don't think this a practice that we would want to  
>>>>>>> see continued.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
>>>>>>>> New Revision: 816083
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>> added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed data  
>>>>>>>> only. After the required data is created with this component  
>>>>>>>> it is possible to enter a salesorder and quickship it and  
>>>>>>>> create an invoice successfully. The 'setup' component will  
>>>>>>>> only show in the tab selection if there is no accounting  
>>>>>>>> organization. Check the ofbiz document for more info or look  
>>>>>>>> in the file applications/commonext/documents/Setup.xml.  
>>>>>>>> Created and sponsored by Antwebsystems. Programmed by  
>>>>>>>> employee Tukkata
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

We already have so many "rules", why is everyone in such a hurry to  
make more?

-David


On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:56 AM, Scott Gray wrote:

> I think Ashish was pointing out that if a contributor supplies a  
> patch then they could request that their company is attributed in  
> the commit log.  A committer would then be required to do so in  
> order to be fair to the contributor since committers are allowed to  
> attribute their own company for their commits.
>
> Also does the committer also get attribution for reviewing and  
> committing community contributions?
> "New feature XYZ contributed by Mr. ABC funded by DEF Corp.  Review  
> and commit funded by GHI Corp.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 18/09/2009, at 7:29 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> Who said anything about requiring the company name? IMO both not  
>> allowing and requiring company names are not worth trying to force  
>> other people to do. In other words, my vote is no company name  
>> police, either way.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for Scott's comment.
>>>
>>> Consider the case:
>>> Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on the  
>>> trunk and instead of that I start attaching the patch on JIRA.
>>> Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the  
>>> fastest picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
>>> So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:
>>>
>>> "Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The new  
>>> feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will be  
>>> sponsored by HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
>>> On the first time committer won't mind writing other company name  
>>> but if this is the case that will happen on regular basis then he  
>>> may(chances are more) start thinking that I am committing the code  
>>> and also mentioning the name of other company. He may come into  
>>> dilemma to decide whether this is right or not to mention other  
>>> company name. Result can be the reduction in the contribution?
>>>
>>> If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if  
>>> committer miss putting company name then I or someone else can ask  
>>> to put the company name.
>>>
>>> I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit  
>>> logs. So here is the *BIG*  -1 for putting company name in commit  
>>> logs.
>>> Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client and  
>>> your client agrees to see his/ her company name then committer can  
>>> mention the name of client company in the commit log.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ashish
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it every  
>>>> in log which is what could very well happen once the ball gets  
>>>> rolling.  I'm not saying it's the end of the world, I'm just  
>>>> saying I would have preferred to keep things the way they are now.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that isn't  
>>>>> what is happening here.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If tastefully  
>>>>> done they are effective to. If done in a tacky or flamboyant  
>>>>> way, chances are people won't appreciate it much.
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other  
>>>>>> hand, I can see a potential for the commit logs being turned  
>>>>>> into commercials:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open For  
>>>>>> Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or something like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any problem  
>>>>>>> with this. Attribution to persons is important, and I'd say  
>>>>>>> even mandatory, and by the pattern established with the  
>>>>>>> individual and company contributor license agreements I have  
>>>>>>> no issue with attribution to employers of contributors if the  
>>>>>>> individual was paid to create something.
>>>>>>> Attribution is one of the motives people and companies have  
>>>>>>> for working on this software and contributing to the project,  
>>>>>>> so I would NEVER complain because a person took credit for  
>>>>>>> work they did or a company took credit for work they sponsored.
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by attributing  
>>>>>>>> a commit to your company within the commit message, OFBiz is  
>>>>>>>> business software and of course a large majority of the  
>>>>>>>> commits are funded by various companies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally I don't think this a practice that we would want  
>>>>>>>> to see continued.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 816083
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>> added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed data  
>>>>>>>>> only. After the required data is created with this component  
>>>>>>>>> it is possible to enter a salesorder and quickship it and  
>>>>>>>>> create an invoice successfully. The 'setup' component will  
>>>>>>>>> only show in the tab selection if there is no accounting  
>>>>>>>>> organization. Check the ofbiz document for more info or look  
>>>>>>>>> in the file applications/commonext/documents/Setup.xml.  
>>>>>>>>> Created and sponsored by Antwebsystems. Programmed by  
>>>>>>>>> employee Tukkata
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

[Scott Gray-2]

I'm in no hurry to make any rules, it just seems more complicated to  
me to allow company attribution than to disallow it, we've gotten by  
fine all these years without it so why start?

Regards
Scott

On 18/09/2009, at 7:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> We already have so many "rules", why is everyone in such a hurry to  
> make more?
>
> -David
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:56 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> I think Ashish was pointing out that if a contributor supplies a  
>> patch then they could request that their company is attributed in  
>> the commit log.  A committer would then be required to do so in  
>> order to be fair to the contributor since committers are allowed to  
>> attribute their own company for their commits.
>>
>> Also does the committer also get attribution for reviewing and  
>> committing community contributions?
>> "New feature XYZ contributed by Mr. ABC funded by DEF Corp.  Review  
>> and commit funded by GHI Corp.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 18/09/2009, at 7:29 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Who said anything about requiring the company name? IMO both not  
>>> allowing and requiring company names are not worth trying to force  
>>> other people to do. In other words, my vote is no company name  
>>> police, either way.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for Scott's comment.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the case:
>>>> Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on the  
>>>> trunk and instead of that I start attaching the patch on JIRA.
>>>> Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the  
>>>> fastest picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
>>>> So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:
>>>>
>>>> "Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The  
>>>> new feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will be  
>>>> sponsored by HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
>>>> On the first time committer won't mind writing other company name  
>>>> but if this is the case that will happen on regular basis then he  
>>>> may(chances are more) start thinking that I am committing the  
>>>> code and also mentioning the name of other company. He may come  
>>>> into dilemma to decide whether this is right or not to mention  
>>>> other company name. Result can be the reduction in the  
>>>> contribution?
>>>>
>>>> If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if  
>>>> committer miss putting company name then I or someone else can  
>>>> ask to put the company name.
>>>>
>>>> I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit  
>>>> logs. So here is the *BIG*  -1 for putting company name in commit  
>>>> logs.
>>>> Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client  
>>>> and your client agrees to see his/ her company name then  
>>>> committer can mention the name of client company in the commit log.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ashish
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>> Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it  
>>>>> every in log which is what could very well happen once the ball  
>>>>> gets rolling.  I'm not saying it's the end of the world, I'm  
>>>>> just saying I would have preferred to keep things the way they  
>>>>> are now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that  
>>>>>> isn't what is happening here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If tastefully  
>>>>>> done they are effective to. If done in a tacky or flamboyant  
>>>>>> way, chances are people won't appreciate it much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other  
>>>>>>> hand, I can see a potential for the commit logs being turned  
>>>>>>> into commercials:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open For  
>>>>>>> Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or something like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any  
>>>>>>>> problem with this. Attribution to persons is important, and  
>>>>>>>> I'd say even mandatory, and by the pattern established with  
>>>>>>>> the individual and company contributor license agreements I  
>>>>>>>> have no issue with attribution to employers of contributors  
>>>>>>>> if the individual was paid to create something.
>>>>>>>> Attribution is one of the motives people and companies have  
>>>>>>>> for working on this software and contributing to the project,  
>>>>>>>> so I would NEVER complain because a person took credit for  
>>>>>>>> work they did or a company took credit for work they sponsored.
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by attributing  
>>>>>>>>> a commit to your company within the commit message, OFBiz is  
>>>>>>>>> business software and of course a large majority of the  
>>>>>>>>> commits are funded by various companies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Personally I don't think this a practice that we would want  
>>>>>>>>> to see continued.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 816083
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>> added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed data  
>>>>>>>>>> only. After the required data is created with this  
>>>>>>>>>> component it is possible to enter a salesorder and  
>>>>>>>>>> quickship it and create an invoice successfully. The  
>>>>>>>>>> 'setup' component will only show in the tab selection if  
>>>>>>>>>> there is no accounting organization. Check the ofbiz  
>>>>>>>>>> document for more info or look in the file applications/
>>>>>>>>>> commonext/documents/Setup.xml. Created and sponsored by  
>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems. Programmed by employee Tukkata
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

My vote would be to NOT enforce any rule on this; I don't see any  
problems in commit logs with:

"... Thanks to <person> (<company name>)"

or similar.
If we will ever see people abusing with this (I don't think is  
happening, happened or will ever happen) we can address this  
specifically.

Jacopo

On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Scott Gray wrote:

> I'm in no hurry to make any rules, it just seems more complicated to  
> me to allow company attribution than to disallow it, we've gotten by  
> fine all these years without it so why start?
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 18/09/2009, at 7:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> We already have so many "rules", why is everyone in such a hurry to  
>> make more?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:56 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>
>>> I think Ashish was pointing out that if a contributor supplies a  
>>> patch then they could request that their company is attributed in  
>>> the commit log.  A committer would then be required to do so in  
>>> order to be fair to the contributor since committers are allowed  
>>> to attribute their own company for their commits.
>>>
>>> Also does the committer also get attribution for reviewing and  
>>> committing community contributions?
>>> "New feature XYZ contributed by Mr. ABC funded by DEF Corp.  
>>> Review and commit funded by GHI Corp.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 18/09/2009, at 7:29 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who said anything about requiring the company name? IMO both not  
>>>> allowing and requiring company names are not worth trying to  
>>>> force other people to do. In other words, my vote is no company  
>>>> name police, either way.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for Scott's comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider the case:
>>>>> Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on the  
>>>>> trunk and instead of that I start attaching the patch on JIRA.
>>>>> Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the  
>>>>> fastest picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
>>>>> So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The  
>>>>> new feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will be  
>>>>> sponsored by HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
>>>>> On the first time committer won't mind writing other company  
>>>>> name but if this is the case that will happen on regular basis  
>>>>> then he may(chances are more) start thinking that I am  
>>>>> committing the code and also mentioning the name of other  
>>>>> company. He may come into dilemma to decide whether this is  
>>>>> right or not to mention other company name. Result can be the  
>>>>> reduction in the contribution?
>>>>>
>>>>> If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if  
>>>>> committer miss putting company name then I or someone else can  
>>>>> ask to put the company name.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit  
>>>>> logs. So here is the *BIG*  -1 for putting company name in  
>>>>> commit logs.
>>>>> Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client  
>>>>> and your client agrees to see his/ her company name then  
>>>>> committer can mention the name of client company in the commit  
>>>>> log.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ashish
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>> Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it  
>>>>>> every in log which is what could very well happen once the ball  
>>>>>> gets rolling.  I'm not saying it's the end of the world, I'm  
>>>>>> just saying I would have preferred to keep things the way they  
>>>>>> are now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that  
>>>>>>> isn't what is happening here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If tastefully  
>>>>>>> done they are effective to. If done in a tacky or flamboyant  
>>>>>>> way, chances are people won't appreciate it much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other  
>>>>>>>> hand, I can see a potential for the commit logs being turned  
>>>>>>>> into commercials:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open For  
>>>>>>>> Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or something like that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any  
>>>>>>>>> problem with this. Attribution to persons is important, and  
>>>>>>>>> I'd say even mandatory, and by the pattern established with  
>>>>>>>>> the individual and company contributor license agreements I  
>>>>>>>>> have no issue with attribution to employers of contributors  
>>>>>>>>> if the individual was paid to create something.
>>>>>>>>> Attribution is one of the motives people and companies have  
>>>>>>>>> for working on this software and contributing to the  
>>>>>>>>> project, so I would NEVER complain because a person took  
>>>>>>>>> credit for work they did or a company took credit for work  
>>>>>>>>> they sponsored.
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by  
>>>>>>>>>> attributing a commit to your company within the commit  
>>>>>>>>>> message, OFBiz is business software and of course a large  
>>>>>>>>>> majority of the commits are funded by various companies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Personally I don't think this a practice that we would want  
>>>>>>>>>> to see continued.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 816083
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>> added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed  
>>>>>>>>>>> data only. After the required data is created with this  
>>>>>>>>>>> component it is possible to enter a salesorder and  
>>>>>>>>>>> quickship it and create an invoice successfully. The  
>>>>>>>>>>> 'setup' component will only show in the tab selection if  
>>>>>>>>>>> there is no accounting organization. Check the ofbiz  
>>>>>>>>>>> document for more info or look in the file applications/
>>>>>>>>>>> commonext/documents/Setup.xml. Created and sponsored by  
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems. Programmed by employee Tukkata
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

Thanks Jacopo, well put. That's exactly what I'm for.

-David


On Sep 18, 2009, at 2:58 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> My vote would be to NOT enforce any rule on this; I don't see any  
> problems in commit logs with:
>
> "... Thanks to <person> (<company name>)"
>
> or similar.
> If we will ever see people abusing with this (I don't think is  
> happening, happened or will ever happen) we can address this  
> specifically.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> I'm in no hurry to make any rules, it just seems more complicated  
>> to me to allow company attribution than to disallow it, we've  
>> gotten by fine all these years without it so why start?
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 18/09/2009, at 7:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We already have so many "rules", why is everyone in such a hurry  
>>> to make more?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:56 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Ashish was pointing out that if a contributor supplies a  
>>>> patch then they could request that their company is attributed in  
>>>> the commit log.  A committer would then be required to do so in  
>>>> order to be fair to the contributor since committers are allowed  
>>>> to attribute their own company for their commits.
>>>>
>>>> Also does the committer also get attribution for reviewing and  
>>>> committing community contributions?
>>>> "New feature XYZ contributed by Mr. ABC funded by DEF Corp.  
>>>> Review and commit funded by GHI Corp.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 7:29 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Who said anything about requiring the company name? IMO both not  
>>>>> allowing and requiring company names are not worth trying to  
>>>>> force other people to do. In other words, my vote is no company  
>>>>> name police, either way.
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for Scott's comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider the case:
>>>>>> Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on the  
>>>>>> trunk and instead of that I start attaching the patch on JIRA.
>>>>>> Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the  
>>>>>> fastest picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
>>>>>> So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The  
>>>>>> new feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will be  
>>>>>> sponsored by HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
>>>>>> On the first time committer won't mind writing other company  
>>>>>> name but if this is the case that will happen on regular basis  
>>>>>> then he may(chances are more) start thinking that I am  
>>>>>> committing the code and also mentioning the name of other  
>>>>>> company. He may come into dilemma to decide whether this is  
>>>>>> right or not to mention other company name. Result can be the  
>>>>>> reduction in the contribution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if  
>>>>>> committer miss putting company name then I or someone else can  
>>>>>> ask to put the company name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit  
>>>>>> logs. So here is the *BIG*  -1 for putting company name in  
>>>>>> commit logs.
>>>>>> Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client  
>>>>>> and your client agrees to see his/ her company name then  
>>>>>> committer can mention the name of client company in the commit  
>>>>>> log.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ashish
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>> Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it  
>>>>>>> every in log which is what could very well happen once the  
>>>>>>> ball gets rolling.  I'm not saying it's the end of the world,  
>>>>>>> I'm just saying I would have preferred to keep things the way  
>>>>>>> they are now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that  
>>>>>>>> isn't what is happening here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If tastefully  
>>>>>>>> done they are effective to. If done in a tacky or flamboyant  
>>>>>>>> way, chances are people won't appreciate it much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other  
>>>>>>>>> hand, I can see a potential for the commit logs being turned  
>>>>>>>>> into commercials:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open  
>>>>>>>>> For Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any  
>>>>>>>>>> problem with this. Attribution to persons is important, and  
>>>>>>>>>> I'd say even mandatory, and by the pattern established with  
>>>>>>>>>> the individual and company contributor license agreements I  
>>>>>>>>>> have no issue with attribution to employers of contributors  
>>>>>>>>>> if the individual was paid to create something.
>>>>>>>>>> Attribution is one of the motives people and companies have  
>>>>>>>>>> for working on this software and contributing to the  
>>>>>>>>>> project, so I would NEVER complain because a person took  
>>>>>>>>>> credit for work they did or a company took credit for work  
>>>>>>>>>> they sponsored.
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by  
>>>>>>>>>>> attributing a commit to your company within the commit  
>>>>>>>>>>> message, OFBiz is business software and of course a large  
>>>>>>>>>>> majority of the commits are funded by various companies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Personally I don't think this a practice that we would  
>>>>>>>>>>> want to see continued.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 816083
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>> added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed  
>>>>>>>>>>>> data only. After the required data is created with this  
>>>>>>>>>>>> component it is possible to enter a salesorder and  
>>>>>>>>>>>> quickship it and create an invoice successfully. The  
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'setup' component will only show in the tab selection if  
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no accounting organization. Check the ofbiz  
>>>>>>>>>>>> document for more info or look in the file applications/
>>>>>>>>>>>> commonext/documents/Setup.xml. Created and sponsored by  
>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems. Programmed by employee Tukkata
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

For this discussion I'd refer to these links
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats
http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas

I know there are no strict rules about that, but don't forget that an ICLA is not a CCLA.  
Regarding this aspect
> "... Thanks to <person> (<company name>)"
is not crystal clear to me

Actually, m concern is the same as Scott's and Ashish, but I agree that we don't need strict rule at this stage :D.

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> My vote would be to NOT enforce any rule on this; I don't see any  
> problems in commit logs with:
>
> "... Thanks to <person> (<company name>)"
>
> or similar.
> If we will ever see people abusing with this (I don't think is  
> happening, happened or will ever happen) we can address this  
> specifically.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> I'm in no hurry to make any rules, it just seems more complicated to  
>> me to allow company attribution than to disallow it, we've gotten by  
>> fine all these years without it so why start?
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 18/09/2009, at 7:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We already have so many "rules", why is everyone in such a hurry to  
>>> make more?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:56 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Ashish was pointing out that if a contributor supplies a  
>>>> patch then they could request that their company is attributed in  
>>>> the commit log.  A committer would then be required to do so in  
>>>> order to be fair to the contributor since committers are allowed  
>>>> to attribute their own company for their commits.
>>>>
>>>> Also does the committer also get attribution for reviewing and  
>>>> committing community contributions?
>>>> "New feature XYZ contributed by Mr. ABC funded by DEF Corp.  
>>>> Review and commit funded by GHI Corp.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 7:29 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Who said anything about requiring the company name? IMO both not  
>>>>> allowing and requiring company names are not worth trying to  
>>>>> force other people to do. In other words, my vote is no company  
>>>>> name police, either way.
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for Scott's comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider the case:
>>>>>> Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on the  
>>>>>> trunk and instead of that I start attaching the patch on JIRA.
>>>>>> Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the  
>>>>>> fastest picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
>>>>>> So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The  
>>>>>> new feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will be  
>>>>>> sponsored by HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
>>>>>> On the first time committer won't mind writing other company  
>>>>>> name but if this is the case that will happen on regular basis  
>>>>>> then he may(chances are more) start thinking that I am  
>>>>>> committing the code and also mentioning the name of other  
>>>>>> company. He may come into dilemma to decide whether this is  
>>>>>> right or not to mention other company name. Result can be the  
>>>>>> reduction in the contribution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if  
>>>>>> committer miss putting company name then I or someone else can  
>>>>>> ask to put the company name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit  
>>>>>> logs. So here is the *BIG*  -1 for putting company name in  
>>>>>> commit logs.
>>>>>> Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client  
>>>>>> and your client agrees to see his/ her company name then  
>>>>>> committer can mention the name of client company in the commit  
>>>>>> log.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ashish
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>> Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it  
>>>>>>> every in log which is what could very well happen once the ball  
>>>>>>> gets rolling.  I'm not saying it's the end of the world, I'm  
>>>>>>> just saying I would have preferred to keep things the way they  
>>>>>>> are now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that  
>>>>>>>> isn't what is happening here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If tastefully  
>>>>>>>> done they are effective to. If done in a tacky or flamboyant  
>>>>>>>> way, chances are people won't appreciate it much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other  
>>>>>>>>> hand, I can see a potential for the commit logs being turned  
>>>>>>>>> into commercials:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open For  
>>>>>>>>> Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any  
>>>>>>>>>> problem with this. Attribution to persons is important, and  
>>>>>>>>>> I'd say even mandatory, and by the pattern established with  
>>>>>>>>>> the individual and company contributor license agreements I  
>>>>>>>>>> have no issue with attribution to employers of contributors  
>>>>>>>>>> if the individual was paid to create something.
>>>>>>>>>> Attribution is one of the motives people and companies have  
>>>>>>>>>> for working on this software and contributing to the  
>>>>>>>>>> project, so I would NEVER complain because a person took  
>>>>>>>>>> credit for work they did or a company took credit for work  
>>>>>>>>>> they sponsored.
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by  
>>>>>>>>>>> attributing a commit to your company within the commit  
>>>>>>>>>>> message, OFBiz is business software and of course a large  
>>>>>>>>>>> majority of the commits are funded by various companies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Personally I don't think this a practice that we would want  
>>>>>>>>>>> to see continued.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 816083
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>> added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed  
>>>>>>>>>>>> data only. After the required data is created with this  
>>>>>>>>>>>> component it is possible to enter a salesorder and  
>>>>>>>>>>>> quickship it and create an invoice successfully. The  
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'setup' component will only show in the tab selection if  
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no accounting organization. Check the ofbiz  
>>>>>>>>>>>> document for more info or look in the file applications/
>>>>>>>>>>>> commonext/documents/Setup.xml. Created and sponsored by  
>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems. Programmed by employee Tukkata
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> I know there are no strict rules about that, but don't forget that  
> an ICLA is not a CCLA.  Regarding this aspect
>

They are not definitely the same: without a CCLA, a committer, being  
paid by a company to modify OFBiz, would not be allowed to contribute  
the code back to the community.

Jacopo

[Scott Gray-2]

Okay that makes sense, I guess I caused a bit of a storm in a tea cup,  
sorry for that.  It was just something I hadn't seen before and  
perhaps overreacted to.

Regards
Scott

On 18/09/2009, at 9:13 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> Thanks Jacopo, well put. That's exactly what I'm for.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 2:58 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>> My vote would be to NOT enforce any rule on this; I don't see any  
>> problems in commit logs with:
>>
>> "... Thanks to <person> (<company name>)"
>>
>> or similar.
>> If we will ever see people abusing with this (I don't think is  
>> happening, happened or will ever happen) we can address this  
>> specifically.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>
>>> I'm in no hurry to make any rules, it just seems more complicated  
>>> to me to allow company attribution than to disallow it, we've  
>>> gotten by fine all these years without it so why start?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 18/09/2009, at 7:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We already have so many "rules", why is everyone in such a hurry  
>>>> to make more?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:56 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think Ashish was pointing out that if a contributor supplies a  
>>>>> patch then they could request that their company is attributed  
>>>>> in the commit log.  A committer would then be required to do so  
>>>>> in order to be fair to the contributor since committers are  
>>>>> allowed to attribute their own company for their commits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also does the committer also get attribution for reviewing and  
>>>>> committing community contributions?
>>>>> "New feature XYZ contributed by Mr. ABC funded by DEF Corp.  
>>>>> Review and commit funded by GHI Corp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 7:29 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who said anything about requiring the company name? IMO both  
>>>>>> not allowing and requiring company names are not worth trying  
>>>>>> to force other people to do. In other words, my vote is no  
>>>>>> company name police, either way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 for Scott's comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consider the case:
>>>>>>> Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on  
>>>>>>> the trunk and instead of that I start attaching the patch on  
>>>>>>> JIRA.
>>>>>>> Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the  
>>>>>>> fastest picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
>>>>>>> So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya - The  
>>>>>>> new feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and will  
>>>>>>> be sponsored by HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
>>>>>>> On the first time committer won't mind writing other company  
>>>>>>> name but if this is the case that will happen on regular basis  
>>>>>>> then he may(chances are more) start thinking that I am  
>>>>>>> committing the code and also mentioning the name of other  
>>>>>>> company. He may come into dilemma to decide whether this is  
>>>>>>> right or not to mention other company name. Result can be the  
>>>>>>> reduction in the contribution?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if  
>>>>>>> committer miss putting company name then I or someone else can  
>>>>>>> ask to put the company name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit  
>>>>>>> logs. So here is the *BIG*  -1 for putting company name in  
>>>>>>> commit logs.
>>>>>>> Although it is totally fine if you are working for some client  
>>>>>>> and your client agrees to see his/ her company name then  
>>>>>>> committer can mention the name of client company in the commit  
>>>>>>> log.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ashish
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it  
>>>>>>>> every in log which is what could very well happen once the  
>>>>>>>> ball gets rolling.  I'm not saying it's the end of the world,  
>>>>>>>> I'm just saying I would have preferred to keep things the way  
>>>>>>>> they are now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that  
>>>>>>>>> isn't what is happening here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If  
>>>>>>>>> tastefully done they are effective to. If done in a tacky or  
>>>>>>>>> flamboyant way, chances are people won't appreciate it much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the other  
>>>>>>>>>> hand, I can see a potential for the commit logs being  
>>>>>>>>>> turned into commercials:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open  
>>>>>>>>>> For Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any  
>>>>>>>>>>> problem with this. Attribution to persons is important,  
>>>>>>>>>>> and I'd say even mandatory, and by the pattern established  
>>>>>>>>>>> with the individual and company contributor license  
>>>>>>>>>>> agreements I have no issue with attribution to employers  
>>>>>>>>>>> of contributors if the individual was paid to create  
>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>> Attribution is one of the motives people and companies  
>>>>>>>>>>> have for working on this software and contributing to the  
>>>>>>>>>>> project, so I would NEVER complain because a person took  
>>>>>>>>>>> credit for work they did or a company took credit for work  
>>>>>>>>>>> they sponsored.
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by  
>>>>>>>>>>>> attributing a commit to your company within the commit  
>>>>>>>>>>>> message, OFBiz is business software and of course a large  
>>>>>>>>>>>> majority of the commits are funded by various companies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally I don't think this a practice that we would  
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to see continued.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 816083
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data only. After the required data is created with this  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> component it is possible to enter a salesorder and  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickship it and create an invoice successfully. The  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'setup' component will only show in the tab selection if  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no accounting organization. Check the ofbiz  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> document for more info or look in the file applications/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> commonext/documents/Setup.xml. Created and sponsored by  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems. Programmed by employee Tukkata
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Mmm, I don't want to be one who opened the Pandorax box...
It's ok with me!

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> I know there are no strict rules about that, but don't forget that  
>> an ICLA is not a CCLA.  Regarding this aspect
>>
>
> They are not definitely the same: without a CCLA, a committer, being  
> paid by a company to modify OFBiz, would not be allowed to contribute  
> the code back to the community.
>
> Jacopo
>

[Tim Ruppert]

It's nice to at least have some clarity around it.  The police will  
come out when it's abused - my vote is still not to mention ANY  
companies in these message, but just the people involved, but if we  
want to allow it - I'm more than happy to support.

Thanks for working thru it all - much appreciated.

Cheers,
Ruppert
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

On Sep 18, 2009, at 6:41 AM, Scott Gray wrote:

> Okay that makes sense, I guess I caused a bit of a storm in a tea  
> cup, sorry for that.  It was just something I hadn't seen before and  
> perhaps overreacted to.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 18/09/2009, at 9:13 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks Jacopo, well put. That's exactly what I'm for.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 2:58 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> My vote would be to NOT enforce any rule on this; I don't see any  
>>> problems in commit logs with:
>>>
>>> "... Thanks to <person> (<company name>)"
>>>
>>> or similar.
>>> If we will ever see people abusing with this (I don't think is  
>>> happening, happened or will ever happen) we can address this  
>>> specifically.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm in no hurry to make any rules, it just seems more complicated  
>>>> to me to allow company attribution than to disallow it, we've  
>>>> gotten by fine all these years without it so why start?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 7:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We already have so many "rules", why is everyone in such a hurry  
>>>>> to make more?
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:56 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Ashish was pointing out that if a contributor supplies  
>>>>>> a patch then they could request that their company is  
>>>>>> attributed in the commit log.  A committer would then be  
>>>>>> required to do so in order to be fair to the contributor since  
>>>>>> committers are allowed to attribute their own company for their  
>>>>>> commits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also does the committer also get attribution for reviewing and  
>>>>>> committing community contributions?
>>>>>> "New feature XYZ contributed by Mr. ABC funded by DEF Corp.  
>>>>>> Review and commit funded by GHI Corp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 7:29 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who said anything about requiring the company name? IMO both  
>>>>>>> not allowing and requiring company names are not worth trying  
>>>>>>> to force other people to do. In other words, my vote is no  
>>>>>>> company name police, either way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 for Scott's comment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consider the case:
>>>>>>>> Suppose for some time I stop directly committing my code on  
>>>>>>>> the trunk and instead of that I start attaching the patch on  
>>>>>>>> JIRA.
>>>>>>>> Now here comes the ball in the hand of Jacques(As he is the  
>>>>>>>> fastest picker) or some other committer to commit my code.
>>>>>>>> So commit log from Jacques will be as shown below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Applied patch from HotWax Media Guy Ashish Vijaywargiya -  
>>>>>>>> The new feature Ebay GetOrders request initiated by him and  
>>>>>>>> will be sponsored by HotWax media." - Isn't it funny?
>>>>>>>> On the first time committer won't mind writing other company  
>>>>>>>> name but if this is the case that will happen on regular  
>>>>>>>> basis then he may(chances are more) start thinking that I am  
>>>>>>>> committing the code and also mentioning the name of other  
>>>>>>>> company. He may come into dilemma to decide whether this is  
>>>>>>>> right or not to mention other company name. Result can be the  
>>>>>>>> reduction in the contribution?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If community get agreed on putting the companies name then if  
>>>>>>>> committer miss putting company name then I or someone else  
>>>>>>>> can ask to put the company name.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am totally against of mentioning company name in the Commit  
>>>>>>>> logs. So here is the *BIG*  -1 for putting company name in  
>>>>>>>> commit logs.
>>>>>>>> Although it is totally fine if you are working for some  
>>>>>>>> client and your client agrees to see his/ her company name  
>>>>>>>> then committer can mention the name of client company in the  
>>>>>>>> commit log.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Ashish
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well whatever, I just would have preferred to not to see it  
>>>>>>>>> every in log which is what could very well happen once the  
>>>>>>>>> ball gets rolling.  I'm not saying it's the end of the  
>>>>>>>>> world, I'm just saying I would have preferred to keep things  
>>>>>>>>> the way they are now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 18/09/2009, at 6:17 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If that becomes a problem then we can address it, but that  
>>>>>>>>>> isn't what is happening here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In a very real way commit logs ARE commercials. If  
>>>>>>>>>> tastefully done they are effective to. If done in a tacky  
>>>>>>>>>> or flamboyant way, chances are people won't appreciate it  
>>>>>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a problem with attribution either. On the  
>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I can see a potential for the commit logs  
>>>>>>>>>>> being turned into commercials:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "XYZ feature added by ABC Systems, Inc - the premier Open  
>>>>>>>>>>> For Business solution provider. Contact us at..."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> or something like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm funny in the head today, but I don't see any  
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with this. Attribution to persons is important,  
>>>>>>>>>>>> and I'd say even mandatory, and by the pattern  
>>>>>>>>>>>> established with the individual and company contributor  
>>>>>>>>>>>> license agreements I have no issue with attribution to  
>>>>>>>>>>>> employers of contributors if the individual was paid to  
>>>>>>>>>>>> create something.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Attribution is one of the motives people and companies  
>>>>>>>>>>>> have for working on this software and contributing to the  
>>>>>>>>>>>> project, so I would NEVER complain because a person took  
>>>>>>>>>>>> credit for work they did or a company took credit for  
>>>>>>>>>>>> work they sponsored.
>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm worried you're creating a precedence here by  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attributing a commit to your company within the commit  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> message, OFBiz is business software and of course a  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> large majority of the commits are funded by various  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> companies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally I don't think this a practice that we would  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to see continued.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/09/2009, at 7:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Sep 17 07:43:05 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 816083
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=816083&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added a 'setup' component to create a system from seed  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data only. After the required data is created with this  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component it is possible to enter a salesorder and  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickship it and create an invoice successfully. The  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'setup' component will only show in the tab selection  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if there is no accounting organization. Check the ofbiz  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document for more info or look in the file applications/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commonext/documents/Setup.xml. Created and sponsored by  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems. Programmed by employee Tukkata
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>