Re: svn commit: r886743 [1/4] - in /ofbiz/branches/addbirt: applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/ applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/actions/payment/ applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/payment/report/ applications/account...

[Adam Heath-2]

Joe Eckard wrote:
>
>> - The initial checkout takes a long time (+9 hours on my machine)
>> although it only ever has to be done once
>
> You can pick the revision to start your tracking at with the -r switch
> to avoid loading the entire project history.

Altho why you would ever want to do so is beyond me.  I like having
all the previous history.  Makes git bisect and git log so much nicer.

Plus, if you do a bit of research on git+apache-svn, you'll find
references to people pulling/pushing to http://svn.eu.apache.org/,
instead of the main server, to reduce the load.  This is how I have my
git-svn configured.

[Scott Gray-2]

Wow that is interesting and makes sense, I'll give the community  
edition a try first (when I actually get around to it).

Thanks
Scott

On 4/12/2009, at 10:06 AM, Anil Patel wrote:

> Yes, Its true, I have used my privileges to get free license for  
> last two years but never really liked the tool enough to make it my  
> primary IDE, always went back to Eclipse.
>
> More recently Tim suggested this community edition thing and then  
> Jacopo agreed that its much lighter and quicker, So I gave it one  
> more shot. This time I like it.
>
> So try community edition, it has everything you need to develop ofbiz.
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Anil Patel
> HotWax Media Inc
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/apache-ofbiz-blog/ofbiz-tutorial-custom-components-in-ofbiz/
>
> On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> BTW if memory serves you should be able to get a license for the  
>> full version for free via their open source program.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 4/12/2009, at 9:49 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>
>>> I did try it very briefly a few years back but I'm so used to  
>>> Eclipse now that I'd be pretty reluctant to switch.  I will  
>>> download it at some point though and take another look, thanks for  
>>> the info.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 4/12/2009, at 9:34 AM, Anil Patel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott, Have your tried IntelliJ,
>>>>
>>>> More recent release of IntelliJ Community edition has support for  
>>>> Git. In fact recently I have switched to using IntelliJ and I  
>>>> like it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and Regards
>>>> Anil Patel
>>>> HotWax Media Inc
>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/apache-ofbiz-blog/ofbiz-tutorial-custom-components-in-ofbiz/
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Joe Eckard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 3, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/12/2009, at 7:32 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When all of this comes across to the trunk could please  
>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>> separating it into at least two commits, one for the  
>>>>>>>> integration and
>>>>>>>> another for all this other stuff.  It'll make the commits a  
>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>> easier to read especially when people are looking at the  
>>>>>>>> commit history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I've said countless times, git makes this easier.  You'd  
>>>>>>> maintain a
>>>>>>> branch(local clone with maybe a separate local branch).  Then, a
>>>>>>> series of commits in that branch.  Git supports history  
>>>>>>> rewriting, so
>>>>>>> you can do things like push/pop commits and edit them.
>>>>>>> guilt(git+quilt) can help, there are also other tools that are  
>>>>>>> similiar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm a couple of days into using git locally and I like it so far.
>>>>>> But there are a couple of things people should be aware of when  
>>>>>> considering the switch:
>>>>>> - The initial checkout takes a long time (+9 hours on my  
>>>>>> machine) although it only ever has to be done once
>>>>>
>>>>> You can pick the revision to start your tracking at with the -r  
>>>>> switch to avoid loading the entire project history.
>>>>>
>>>>>> - The learning curve is steeper than with svn
>>>>>> - The workflows are quite different from svn so be prepared to  
>>>>>> change the way you work
>>>>>> - Setup on OS X can be a pain (you need XCode tools installed  
>>>>>> to use the git-svn bridge and if you don't have your OS X  
>>>>>> install DVD handy it's a 1GB download)
>>>>>> - GUI support is limited (e.g. the Eclipse plugin is at v0.6)
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you checked out "git gui" and GitX? http://gitx.frim.nl/
>>>>>
>>>>> I use git from the command line, so I'm not sure how well the  
>>>>> "git gui" UI works, but GitX is pretty neat.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[hans_bakker]

Hi Scott,

had some time to look at it this weekend?

if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the trunk
this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.

Regards,
Hans


On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
.....
> > Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your last
> > concerns?
>
> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over the  
> whole thing on the weekend.

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[Tim Ruppert]

Did all of this go to legal like was requested?  If not, then it's a -1 to commit this to the trunk.

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

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Hi Scott,
>
> had some time to look at it this weekend?
>
> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the trunk
> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
> .....
>>> Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your last
>>> concerns?
>>
>> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over the  
>> whole thing on the weekend.
>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[Scott Gray-2]

Hi Ruppert

Hans ended up removing the code which was of concern so the issues  
that I suggested he discuss with legal are no longer present.

Regards
Scott

On 8/12/2009, at 4:49 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote:

> Did all of this go to legal like was requested?  If not, then it's a  
> -1 to commit this to the trunk.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> had some time to look at it this weekend?
>>
>> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the trunk
>> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>> .....
>>>> Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your last
>>>> concerns?
>>>
>>> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over the
>>> whole thing on the weekend.
>>
>> --
>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>
>

[Tim Ruppert]

Awesome!  Thanks for letting me know Scott.

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

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

On Dec 7, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Scott Gray wrote:

> Hi Ruppert
>
> Hans ended up removing the code which was of concern so the issues that I suggested he discuss with legal are no longer present.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 8/12/2009, at 4:49 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>
>> Did all of this go to legal like was requested?  If not, then it's a -1 to commit this to the trunk.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ruppert
>> --
>> Tim Ruppert
>> HotWax Media
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>
>> o:801.649.6594
>> f:801.649.6595
>>
>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Scott,
>>>
>>> had some time to look at it this weekend?
>>>
>>> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the trunk
>>> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>>> .....
>>>>> Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your last
>>>>> concerns?
>>>>
>>>> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over the
>>>> whole thing on the weekend.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>
>>
>

[Adam Heath-2]

Hans Bakker wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> had some time to look at it this weekend?
>
> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the trunk
> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
>
> Regards,
> Hans

I need more time to look into this.  I had my big birthday party bash
on saturday, and I've got work responsibilities the next few days.
I'll won't be able to look at it before tomorrow afternoon.

[Scott Gray-2]

Hi Hans,

No I'm sorry I'm afraid I didn't find time for a full review, however  
all of the licensing issues I initially raised appear to have been  
resolved, so from that point of view I am fine with it being  
committed.  From a functional point of view I'm guess we can tidy up  
anything that needs it once it's in the trunk.  For example I would  
like to see the jsp tags replaced with freemarker directives if for no  
other reason that consistency with the rest of the project but it is  
certainly not an issue that precludes birt's entry into the trunk.

I'd suggest you give Adam time to review the code as he has requested  
and hopefully if anyone else wishes to review it then they'll do it  
now or at least ask for more time soon.

Regards
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com


On 8/12/2009, at 3:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Hi Scott,
>
> had some time to look at it this weekend?
>
> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the trunk
> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
> .....
>>> Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your last
>>> concerns?
>>
>> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over the
>> whole thing on the weekend.
>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[hans_bakker]

Thank you Scott for the statement.

For the record, all work on the Birt branch was done by Chattree, a
colleague of mine here at Antwebsystems. I just helped him a bit because
the tough western (mailinglist) mentality is not really compatible with
the Asian culture where relationships are the most important value.

Regards,
Hans


On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 08:25 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:

> Hi Ruppert
>
> Hans ended up removing the code which was of concern so the issues  
> that I suggested he discuss with legal are no longer present.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 8/12/2009, at 4:49 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>
> > Did all of this go to legal like was requested?  If not, then it's a  
> > -1 to commit this to the trunk.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ruppert
> > --
> > Tim Ruppert
> > HotWax Media
> > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >
> > o:801.649.6594
> > f:801.649.6595
> >
> > On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Scott,
> >>
> >> had some time to look at it this weekend?
> >>
> >> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the trunk
> >> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Hans
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
> >> .....
> >>>> Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your last
> >>>> concerns?
> >>>
> >>> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over the
> >>> whole thing on the weekend.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
> >>
> >
>

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[hans_bakker]

Hi Adam, Scott,

is end of the week a reasonable deadline?

Regards,

Hans

On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 13:33 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:

> Hans Bakker wrote:
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > had some time to look at it this weekend?
> >
> > if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the trunk
> > this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hans
>
> I need more time to look into this.  I had my big birthday party bash
> on saturday, and I've got work responsibilities the next few days.
> I'll won't be able to look at it before tomorrow afternoon.
>

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[David E. Jones-2]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Thank you Scott for the statement.
>
> For the record, all work on the Birt branch was done by Chattree, a
> colleague of mine here at Antwebsystems. I just helped him a bit because
> the tough western (mailinglist) mentality is not really compatible with
> the Asian culture where relationships are the most important value.

I often wish people on the mailing lists considered relationships to be a higher value!

-David

[Scott Gray-2]

On 8/12/2009, at 4:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Thank you Scott for the statement.
>
> For the record, all work on the Birt branch was done by Chattree, a
> colleague of mine here at Antwebsystems. I just helped him a bit  
> because
> the tough western (mailinglist) mentality is not really compatible  
> with
> the Asian culture where relationships are the most important value.

If you're implying that I've treated our relationship with less value  
than was appropriate then I take offense to that.  I'd like to remind  
you that I spent some of my spare time reviewing your work instead of  
working on things that I am interested in and you proceeded to ignore  
my review even though you requested it.  When you finally did  
acknowledge my comments you treated them as some sort of unfair burden  
that I was placing on you.  I found your actions to be rude, very  
annoying and hardly indicative of your desire to have a good working  
relationship.  So for you to sit here and attempt to take the high  
ground when you have been the agitator during these discussions is a  
little bit rich for my liking.

Regards
Scott

>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 08:25 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>> Hi Ruppert
>>
>> Hans ended up removing the code which was of concern so the issues
>> that I suggested he discuss with legal are no longer present.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 8/12/2009, at 4:49 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>
>>> Did all of this go to legal like was requested?  If not, then it's a
>>> -1 to commit this to the trunk.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ruppert
>>> --
>>> Tim Ruppert
>>> HotWax Media
>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>
>>> o:801.649.6594
>>> f:801.649.6595
>>>
>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>
>>>> had some time to look at it this weekend?
>>>>
>>>> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the  
>>>> trunk
>>>> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> .....
>>>>>> Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your  
>>>>>> last
>>>>>> concerns?
>>>>>
>>>>> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over the
>>>>> whole thing on the weekend.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[hans_bakker]

Hi Scott,

If that was offending to you i apologize for that. I was under the
impression that the Eclipse license was allowed and you, you stated it
yourself, brought up license issues without being a license expert and
gave me the burden to solve it also being far from a license expert.

For every new function I introduce there is a lot of opposition always
by the same people which sometimes gives me the feeling that simply
reasons are found to block my contributions. Perhaps the main problem
here is that i put business reasons much higher than technical reasons
and most people here are technical.

All seems now be solved,  and i appreciate you technical view and
comments on the system.

Concerning my comment about relationships, had nothing to do with you,
just by the way way people in general treat each other here in the
mailing list, which is much different here in Thailand and has its
disadvantages too. Probably nothing is perfect in this world.

Regards,
Hans


On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 21:46 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:

> On 8/12/2009, at 4:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
> > Thank you Scott for the statement.
> >
> > For the record, all work on the Birt branch was done by Chattree, a
> > colleague of mine here at Antwebsystems. I just helped him a bit  
> > because
> > the tough western (mailinglist) mentality is not really compatible  
> > with
> > the Asian culture where relationships are the most important value.
>
> If you're implying that I've treated our relationship with less value  
> than was appropriate then I take offense to that.  I'd like to remind  
> you that I spent some of my spare time reviewing your work instead of  
> working on things that I am interested in and you proceeded to ignore  
> my review even though you requested it.  When you finally did  
> acknowledge my comments you treated them as some sort of unfair burden  
> that I was placing on you.  I found your actions to be rude, very  
> annoying and hardly indicative of your desire to have a good working  
> relationship.  So for you to sit here and attempt to take the high  
> ground when you have been the agitator during these discussions is a  
> little bit rich for my liking.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 08:25 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
> >> Hi Ruppert
> >>
> >> Hans ended up removing the code which was of concern so the issues
> >> that I suggested he discuss with legal are no longer present.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On 8/12/2009, at 4:49 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> >>
> >>> Did all of this go to legal like was requested?  If not, then it's a
> >>> -1 to commit this to the trunk.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Ruppert
> >>> --
> >>> Tim Ruppert
> >>> HotWax Media
> >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >>>
> >>> o:801.649.6594
> >>> f:801.649.6595
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Scott,
> >>>>
> >>>> had some time to look at it this weekend?
> >>>>
> >>>> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the  
> >>>> trunk
> >>>> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Hans
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
> >>>> .....
> >>>>>> Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your  
> >>>>>> last
> >>>>>> concerns?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over the
> >>>>> whole thing on the weekend.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> > --
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
> >
>

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[Scott Gray-2]

On 8/12/2009, at 10:16 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Hi Scott,
>
> If that was offending to you i apologize for that. I was under the
> impression that the Eclipse license was allowed and you, you stated it
> yourself, brought up license issues without being a license expert and
> gave me the burden to solve it also being far from a license expert.

A quick review from my perspective:
- You were provided with a link to the ASF's licensing explanation  
page way back on the 11th Nov, that link provided a clear explanation  
of how the EPL should be treated.  You did not attempt to clarify with  
the community the implications of the ASF guidelines.
- Sometime around the 20th you again asked if it was okay to commit  
birt to the trunk and were again reminded of the licensing issues, I  
reviewed the code in full from a licensing point of view and pointed  
out the specific problems.  You did not respond.
- At the start of this month you again asked if it was okay to commit  
birt to the trunk and basically said that the licensing problems were  
not problems at all, even though you had made no attempt to clarify  
the licensing situation with the community.
- A few days later you asked for my help in finding a way for the birt  
project to modify their license so that we could use their source  
code.  I explained that I had no idea how to do that and recommended  
you contact the ASF legal mailing, at which point you seemed to get  
annoyed at me for my apparent unwillingness to help.

I think much of this could have been avoided if you had made a greater  
effort to interact with the community during the earlier reviews and  
to understand the issues that were raised.  As you mentioned below,  
all seems to be solved now and I am not trying to attack you by  
pointing these things out, I'm only pushing this issue because I would  
prefer it if things went more smoothly in the future.

> For every new function I introduce there is a lot of opposition always
> by the same people which sometimes gives me the feeling that simply
> reasons are found to block my contributions.

I want to make it quite clear to you and to everybody else that my  
opinions and comments are my own and no one else's.  No one has ever  
attempted to influence the way I interact with the community and I can  
assure you that such an attempt would fail.  I review OFBiz commits  
because I care about the project and for the most part I do it on my  
own time.  Your contributions are as welcome to me as anyone else's,  
but just as with anyone else I will respond if I see problems or if  
they fail to follow best practices and I welcome this same treatment  
from the community to my own work (not because I think my work is  
infallible, I'm quite sure people could find problems with my commits  
and identifying those problems would help me improve my work).  My  
reviews are not an attempt to attack your contributions and I do not  
sit here waiting for you to commit something so that I can pick it  
apart.

> Perhaps the main problem
> here is that i put business reasons much higher than technical reasons
> and most people here are technical.

IMO it is impossible to effectively solve business problems without  
respecting the technical foundation of those solutions, attempting to  
do so will result in a leaning tower.  Anyway, differing opinions  
should be treated as an opportunity to find a better solution and not  
as a recipe for disaster.

> All seems now be solved,  and i appreciate you technical view and
> comments on the system.

And I do, honestly, appreciate you and your team's contributions.

> Concerning my comment about relationships, had nothing to do with you,
> just by the way way people in general treat each other here in the
> mailing list, which is much different here in Thailand and has its
> disadvantages too. Probably nothing is perfect in this world.

Understood, thank you for clarifying and I apologize for my rash  
interpretation.

Regards
Scott

>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 21:46 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 8/12/2009, at 4:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Scott for the statement.
>>>
>>> For the record, all work on the Birt branch was done by Chattree, a
>>> colleague of mine here at Antwebsystems. I just helped him a bit
>>> because
>>> the tough western (mailinglist) mentality is not really compatible
>>> with
>>> the Asian culture where relationships are the most important value.
>>
>> If you're implying that I've treated our relationship with less value
>> than was appropriate then I take offense to that.  I'd like to remind
>> you that I spent some of my spare time reviewing your work instead of
>> working on things that I am interested in and you proceeded to ignore
>> my review even though you requested it.  When you finally did
>> acknowledge my comments you treated them as some sort of unfair  
>> burden
>> that I was placing on you.  I found your actions to be rude, very
>> annoying and hardly indicative of your desire to have a good working
>> relationship.  So for you to sit here and attempt to take the high
>> ground when you have been the agitator during these discussions is a
>> little bit rich for my liking.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 08:25 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> Hi Ruppert
>>>>
>>>> Hans ended up removing the code which was of concern so the issues
>>>> that I suggested he discuss with legal are no longer present.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 8/12/2009, at 4:49 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did all of this go to legal like was requested?  If not, then  
>>>>> it's a
>>>>> -1 to commit this to the trunk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Ruppert
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tim Ruppert
>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>
>>>>> o:801.649.6594
>>>>> f:801.649.6595
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> had some time to look at it this weekend?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the
>>>>>> trunk
>>>>>> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>> .....
>>>>>>>> Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your
>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>> concerns?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over  
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> whole thing on the weekend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>
>>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[Adam Heath-2]

Hans Bakker wrote:
> For every new function I introduce there is a lot of opposition always
> by the same people which sometimes gives me the feeling that simply
> reasons are found to block my contributions. Perhaps the main problem
> here is that i put business reasons much higher than technical reasons
> and most people here are technical.

You do a lot.  The more work you do, the more people will talk about
what you are doing.

If we said go away, you suck, your stuff sucks, and your mother smells
of elderberrys, then yeah, I'd be annoyed to.

But if we talk about the implementation, it shows we are interested in
what you are doing.

However, be aware, that things you might do locally, may not work when
they get shared with everyone else.

> Concerning my comment about relationships, had nothing to do with you,
> just by the way way people in general treat each other here in the
> mailing list, which is much different here in Thailand and has its
> disadvantages too. Probably nothing is perfect in this world.

Again, Thailand is a single country, in one part of the world.  OfBiz
is bigger than that, we have to deal with everyone and everything.

[David E. Jones-2]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:16 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> For every new function I introduce there is a lot of opposition always
> by the same people which sometimes gives me the feeling that simply
> reasons are found to block my contributions. Perhaps the main problem
> here is that i put business reasons much higher than technical reasons
> and most people here are technical.

I don't know if this has anything to do with business versus technical. Giving feedback always involves pointing out things that could be (or sometimes need to be) improved. None of us are perfect, but it's easy to forget that, and we should always assume that no matter what we put together and how well we do it the thing can be improved by the review and feedback from others. I've found this to be true 100% of the time. Said plainly, OFBiz would not be where it is and the framework and other things would not be nearly as good without significant community feedback.

To be honest the general tendency for people to resist feedback and dislike the person giving it is why I don't do it as much any more. I got really tired of people attacking me, accusing me of mal intent and all sorts of nasty things, and also most likely making enemies at a time when I need people to collaborate with and I need paying work (I can't liquidate assets forever...).

If we all want to collaborate more, we need be a lot less sensitive in this way, and a lot more appreciative of feedback. On the flip side, we also need to give feedback in ways that sticks to the point and stays detailed instead of vaguely mentioning something and then dropping into personal attacks (unfortunately ad hominem logic works on most people, but it is never truly effective).

In short, we all have a lot room for improvement in the collaboration area. If anyone is tempted to attack someone personally, just don't... start writing about details of the problem instead and focus on effective communication and collaboration. If anyone is temped to interpret something written as a personal attack, just don't... look for or ask for details and focus on effective communication and collaboration.

-David

[Scott Gray-2]

On 9/12/2009, at 7:53 AM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:16 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> For every new function I introduce there is a lot of opposition  
>> always
>> by the same people which sometimes gives me the feeling that simply
>> reasons are found to block my contributions. Perhaps the main problem
>> here is that i put business reasons much higher than technical  
>> reasons
>> and most people here are technical.
>
> I don't know if this has anything to do with business versus  
> technical. Giving feedback always involves pointing out things that  
> could be (or sometimes need to be) improved. None of us are perfect,  
> but it's easy to forget that, and we should always assume that no  
> matter what we put together and how well we do it the thing can be  
> improved by the review and feedback from others. I've found this to  
> be true 100% of the time. Said plainly, OFBiz would not be where it  
> is and the framework and other things would not be nearly as good  
> without significant community feedback.
>
> To be honest the general tendency for people to resist feedback and  
> dislike the person giving it is why I don't do it as much any more.  
> I got really tired of people attacking me, accusing me of mal intent  
> and all sorts of nasty things, and also most likely making enemies  
> at a time when I need people to collaborate with and I need paying  
> work (I can't liquidate assets forever...).

This is a real shame, your reviews were of great value to the project  
and I'm quite sure were very appreciated by the vast majority of the  
community.

Regards
Scott

[Adam Heath-2]

Scott Gray wrote:
> This is a real shame, your reviews were of great value to the project
> and I'm quite sure were very appreciated by the vast majority of the
> community.

So does that mean if only you and I appreciated David's comments, but
no one else, and since you used 'vast', that means that we are fat?

[Scott Gray-2]

On 9/12/2009, at 10:44 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Scott Gray wrote:
>> This is a real shame, your reviews were of great value to the project
>> and I'm quite sure were very appreciated by the vast majority of the
>> community.
>
> So does that mean if only you and I appreciated David's comments, but
> no one else, and since you used 'vast', that means that we are fat?

I'm impressed with your ability to interpret my statement in the most  
ridiculous way possible :-)

[Adam Heath-2]

Scott Gray wrote:

> On 9/12/2009, at 10:44 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>> This is a real shame, your reviews were of great value to the project
>>> and I'm quite sure were very appreciated by the vast majority of the
>>> community.
>>
>> So does that mean if only you and I appreciated David's comments, but
>> no one else, and since you used 'vast', that means that we are fat?
>
> I'm impressed with your ability to interpret my statement in the most
> ridiculous way possible :-)

Wow.  That was a self-deprecating statement if I ever saw one.  I
never new anyone who admitted to being so easily impressed.

GDR