Re: svn commit: r902716 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/images/webapp/images/rate/ specialpurpose/ebay/ specialpurpose/ebay/config/ specialpurpose/ebay/data/ specialpurpose/ebay/data/helpdata/ specialpurpose/ebay/servicedef/ specialpurpose/ebay/src/org/...

[Tim Ruppert]

This is agreed Adam - but since I was talking to a particular committer and a particular commit, I used the committer's name.  In the future, if this is our new policy, I'd be happy to simply refer to the committer as "committer".  

This was indeed meant for each and everyone with commit privileges, but this was a particularly egregious example of just slamming in code without reviewing it first (and blaming it on the contributor to boot) and really shouldn't be allowed going forward IMO.  As David mentioned, making code better is a group effort, and here's to hoping that the group gets more of a chance next time rather than it already being dumped into the system and getting to sort it out after the fact.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Jan 26, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> For those of you who didn't bother to read the entire thread, the
>> comments in it were specific:
>>
>> 1. Hans made a large commit
>> 2. Adam criticized the commit, asked Hans to break it up into smaller
>> pieces
>> 3. Hans blamed one of his workers
>> 4. Tim commented that Hans has an obligation to make good commits
>> 5. David accused Tim of picking a fight
>> 6. Tim responded to David's accusation
>> 7. I supported Tim, saying Hans' reputation has earned him additional
>> scrutiny
>
> Except that in step 4, Tim mentioned Hans; if he had removed that
> single word, I would have sided(I hate that term in this situation)
> with Tim.
>
> Yes, is a very small change.  But if you re-read my mail, I didn't
> mention any particular person.  I just used generic pronouns.  I do
> that, so my explanations can be applied to *anyone*, as we *all* must
> follow these rules.
>
> When a lone person is singled out, it is taken to mean that the rules
> or discussion only apply to the target, instead of all.

[Adam Heath-2]

Adrian Crum wrote:

> Adam Heath wrote:
>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> For those of you who didn't bother to read the entire thread, the
>>> comments in it were specific:
>>>
>>> 1. Hans made a large commit
>>> 2. Adam criticized the commit, asked Hans to break it up into smaller
>>> pieces
>>> 3. Hans blamed one of his workers
>>> 4. Tim commented that Hans has an obligation to make good commits
>>> 5. David accused Tim of picking a fight
>>> 6. Tim responded to David's accusation
>>> 7. I supported Tim, saying Hans' reputation has earned him additional
>>> scrutiny
>>
>> Except that in step 4, Tim mentioned Hans; if he had removed that
>> single word, I would have sided(I hate that term in this situation)
>> with Tim.
>>
>> Yes, is a very small change.  But if you re-read my mail, I didn't
>> mention any particular person.  I just used generic pronouns.  I do
>> that, so my explanations can be applied to *anyone*, as we *all* must
>> follow these rules.
>>
>> When a lone person is singled out, it is taken to mean that the rules
>> or discussion only apply to the target, instead of all.
>
> Very good advice. I will strive to be less personal in the future.

For reference, I've been involved in *extremely* *very* *heated*
*fireball* *flame* *total* *destruction* email *wars*.  I've been
involved with debian for a long time(not so much lately); debian is
famous for it's, shall we say, email discussions.

[Adam Heath-2]

Tim Ruppert wrote:
> This is agreed Adam - but since I was talking to a particular committer and a particular commit, I used the committer's name.  In the future, if this is our new policy, I'd be happy to simply refer to the committer as "committer".  
>
> This was indeed meant for each and everyone with commit privileges, but this was a particularly egregious example of just slamming in code without reviewing it first (and blaming it on the contributor to boot) and really shouldn't be allowed going forward IMO.  As David mentioned, making code better is a group effort, and here's to hoping that the group gets more of a chance next time rather than it already being dumped into the system and getting to sort it out after the fact.

Of course, we all have to follow these same rules/guidelines as well.
 As everyone here is aware, I follow these guidelines very closely.
You've all seen my commit floods, where I'll do 10 or more commits in
rapid succession.  I use git to do this.

Just to be fair, I do not do development in small steps.  I do a
single large feature, committing whenever I feel like I need to save
my work.  During this development, I do not care at all what commit
messages I use.

When I finally get it done, I use git rebase -i, which allows me to
split up commits, combine commits, reorder then, change commit
messages, to get the new work in a functional, easy to digest state.
Then, once that is done, I can go and run the tests at any point along
that history, to verify things work correctly.  Once all that is
finally done, I end up doing the final commit flood back to svn.

Yes, this is more work.  That isn't the question.  But, when working
with a community project, it is one of the requirements that must be
followed.  We have all signed the CLA for apache; doing so meant we
also had to read what being a committer actually entailed.

Now, to get more personal.

Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
*requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.

However, if you say you don't know how, or have no idea how to do
that, then that is ok; there are systems out there to help you with
that.  My favorite(wait for it, I bet you can't guess what I am going
to say) is git.  But even that is not nescessary.  At the very least,
use svn diff before you commit.  Learn to edit patch files
directly(adding/removing/changing chunks, order, adding lines in the
middle of a patch).  Use an editor that supports coloring of diffs(do
google searches).

ps: even before I started using git with ofbiz, I would do the same
workflow with plain-jane svn.  I just wouldn't commit anything, would
make copys of files and directories, would *retype the same set of
changes by hand*.  This is just something I've always done, and I just
consider it part of what I must do to work with other people.

pps: for customer based single use sites, I don't follow these steps;
 when code is a one-off implementation, I tend to do large commits.
However, if we(brainfood) decide that some customer code has something
that might be useful on our other sites, when I go to copy that code,
I then start splitting it up into small changes.

[David E. Jones-2]

On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.

Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.

It's interesting how people banter about the terms "policy" and "best practices" and speak of these sorts of requirements and obligations. I'm glad we're all so interested in trying to force each other to do things, or rather since there is no force available to us then imply some sort of agreement that everyone has accepted, or some sort of obligation that is implied by being a committer.

Aren't there better ways of working together?

-David

[Adam Heath-2]

David E Jones wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
>> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
>> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.
>
> Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.

http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities

> It's interesting how people banter about the terms "policy" and "best practices" and speak of these sorts of requirements and obligations. I'm glad we're all so interested in trying to force each other to do things, or rather since there is no force available to us then imply some sort of agreement that everyone has accepted, or some sort of obligation that is implied by being a committer.
>
> Aren't there better ways of working together?
>
> -David

[David E. Jones-2]

On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> David E Jones wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
>>> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
>>> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.
>>
>> Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities

1. anyone can change that page, and many have with no discussion or agreement

2. I don't see anything there about this required work that you speak of, except some vague ideas that appear to be copied (by Jacques?) from an email of yours

-David

[Tim Ruppert]

Wow David, you certainly seem to be fighting for the ability for people to NOT do things that everyone is clamoring for - review the commits in depth and break them up - why the resistance?  Do you not think that the committer should've broken this up?  Do you not think that the community would be in a better place if these practices were followed?  Shall the rest of us spend more time documenting this?  

I think we've all asked about these in the past and the community has asked for these things not to continue - what should be our next step if we'd like to get the committers roles and responsibilities more clearly defined so that we can stop wasting time on things that shouldn't be making their way into the project in these forms?

I'm open to anything - not trying to fight with you - just wondering how we can skip this step of internal review in the future.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:09 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
>>>> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
>>>> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.
>>>
>>> Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
>
> 1. anyone can change that page, and many have with no discussion or agreement
>
> 2. I don't see anything there about this required work that you speak of, except some vague ideas that appear to be copied (by Jacques?) from an email of yours
>
> -David
>
>

[Adam Heath-2]

Adam Heath wrote:
> David E Jones wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
>>> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
>>> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.
>> Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities

Granted, the thing I am pointing out was quoted from me, but I wasn't
the one who put it into that page.

This same page says to do no harm.  How is it possible to ensure that
you do no harm, if you are committing 10 different things all at once?
 Maybe you(any you, not just you David) can handle super huge commits.
 But what about in the future, 6 or 18 months down the road, when you
have moved on to other things.  Are you saying you can go back to any
point in time, and immediately understand what you were doing at the time?

Now, consider some other person, who is *not* you, who is a completely
different background, was raised in a different society, has different
preconceptions, not to mention different desired features.  Will this
supposed person be able to look at this large set of changes, all
combined, and be able to understand it?

[David E. Jones-2]

On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote:

> Wow David, you certainly seem to be fighting for the ability for people to NOT do things that everyone is clamoring for - review the commits in depth and break them up - why the resistance?  

Then you misunderstand what I've written.

Have you noticed that whatever has been done isn't working so well to get the result people desire? That's what I'm trying to address.

-David

> Do you not think that the committer should've broken this up?  Do you not think that the community would be in a better place if these practices were followed?  Shall the rest of us spend more time documenting this?  
>
> I think we've all asked about these in the past and the community has asked for these things not to continue - what should be our next step if we'd like to get the committers roles and responsibilities more clearly defined so that we can stop wasting time on things that shouldn't be making their way into the project in these forms?
>
> I'm open to anything - not trying to fight with you - just wondering how we can skip this step of internal review in the future.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
>
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:09 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
>>>>> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
>>>>> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.
>>>>
>>>> Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.
>>>
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
>>
>> 1. anyone can change that page, and many have with no discussion or agreement
>>
>> 2. I don't see anything there about this required work that you speak of, except some vague ideas that appear to be copied (by Jacques?) from an email of yours
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>

[Tim Ruppert]

Please answer the rest of the questions and help to provide a way forward so that everyone can get what they're looking for - thanks.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:20 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>
>> Wow David, you certainly seem to be fighting for the ability for people to NOT do things that everyone is clamoring for - review the commits in depth and break them up - why the resistance?  
>
> Then you misunderstand what I've written.
>
> Have you noticed that whatever has been done isn't working so well to get the result people desire? That's what I'm trying to address.

Yes, I have noticed that this commit in particular is not getting the result that the committer desired.  I can't imagine that the committer was looking for a hundred responses to what was done.

> -David
>
>
>> Do you not think that the committer should've broken this up?  Do you not think that the community would be in a better place if these practices were followed?  Shall the rest of us spend more time documenting this?  
>>
>> I think we've all asked about these in the past and the community has asked for these things not to continue - what should be our next step if we'd like to get the committers roles and responsibilities more clearly defined so that we can stop wasting time on things that shouldn't be making their way into the project in these forms?
>>
>> I'm open to anything - not trying to fight with you - just wondering how we can skip this step of internal review in the future.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ruppert
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:09 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
>>>>>> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
>>>>>> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.
>>>>
>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
>>>
>>> 1. anyone can change that page, and many have with no discussion or agreement
>>>
>>> 2. I don't see anything there about this required work that you speak of, except some vague ideas that appear to be copied (by Jacques?) from an email of yours
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>

> On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
>>>> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
>>>> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.
>>>
>>> Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't
>>> remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
>
> 1. anyone can change that page, and many have with no discussion or agreement
>
> 2. I don't see anything there about this required work that you speak of, except some vague ideas that appear to be copied (by
> Jacques?) from an email of yours
>
> -David

BTW, it's a bit out of subject but I asked recently if we should stll maintain
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Libraries+Included+in+OFBiz, because if I recall well lately it was not done,
but nobody answered to my question.
So here it is again :o) should the community continue to maintain this document or not ? In other word are there still some persons
interested by this document? For what is it used now ?

Without answers I will consider that it's not important anymore, but I don't think so, it could turn in a very convenient document
at any moment....

Thanks

Jacques

[David E. Jones-2]

I certainly wouldn't want to stand in the way of everyone getting what they're looking for... ;)

-David


On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote:

> Please answer the rest of the questions and help to provide a way forward so that everyone can get what they're looking for - thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
>
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:20 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>
>>> Wow David, you certainly seem to be fighting for the ability for people to NOT do things that everyone is clamoring for - review the commits in depth and break them up - why the resistance?  
>>
>> Then you misunderstand what I've written.
>>
>> Have you noticed that whatever has been done isn't working so well to get the result people desire? That's what I'm trying to address.
>
> Yes, I have noticed that this commit in particular is not getting the result that the committer desired.  I can't imagine that the committer was looking for a hundred responses to what was done.
>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>> Do you not think that the committer should've broken this up?  Do you not think that the community would be in a better place if these practices were followed?  Shall the rest of us spend more time documenting this?  
>>>
>>> I think we've all asked about these in the past and the community has asked for these things not to continue - what should be our next step if we'd like to get the committers roles and responsibilities more clearly defined so that we can stop wasting time on things that shouldn't be making their way into the project in these forms?
>>>
>>> I'm open to anything - not trying to fight with you - just wondering how we can skip this step of internal review in the future.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ruppert
>>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:09 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
>>>>>>> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
>>>>>>> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
>>>>
>>>> 1. anyone can change that page, and many have with no discussion or agreement
>>>>
>>>> 2. I don't see anything there about this required work that you speak of, except some vague ideas that appear to be copied (by Jacques?) from an email of yours
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
>>>>> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
>>>>> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.
>>>>
>>>> Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.
>>>
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
>>
>> 1. anyone can change that page, and many have with no discussion or agreement
>>
>> 2. I don't see anything there about this required work that you speak of, except some vague ideas that appear to be copied (by Jacques?) from an email of yours
>>
>> -David
>
>
> BTW, it's a bit out of subject but I asked recently if we should stll maintain http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Libraries+Included+in+OFBiz, because if I recall well lately it was not done, but nobody answered to my question.
> So here it is again :o) should the community continue to maintain this document or not ? In other word are there still some persons interested by this document? For what is it used now ?
>
> Without answers I will consider that it's not important anymore, but I don't think so, it could turn in a very convenient document at any moment....

This was a necessary document for the ASF incubation effort. While not so necessary now, it is nice to document the libraries included in OFBiz, their source, their license, and so on. This is helpful for contributors as well as users.

If no one steps up to manage this document I guess it will deteriorate. We do need to maintain the NOTICE and LICENSE files, though we don't really "have to" maintain this page.

-David

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>

> On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
>>>>>> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
>>>>>> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't
>>>>> remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.
>>>>
>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
>>>
>>> 1. anyone can change that page, and many have with no discussion or agreement
>>>
>>> 2. I don't see anything there about this required work that you speak of, except some vague ideas that appear to be copied (by
>>> Jacques?) from an email of yours
>>>
>>> -David
>>
>>
>> BTW, it's a bit out of subject but I asked recently if we should stll maintain
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Libraries+Included+in+OFBiz, because if I recall well lately it was not done,
>> but nobody answered to my question.
>> So here it is again :o) should the community continue to maintain this document or not ? In other word are there still some
>> persons interested by this document? For what is it used now ?
>>
>> Without answers I will consider that it's not important anymore, but I don't think so, it could turn in a very convenient
>> document at any moment....
>
> This was a necessary document for the ASF incubation effort. While not so necessary now, it is nice to document the libraries
> included in OFBiz, their source, their license, and so on. This is helpful for contributors as well as users.
>
> If no one steps up to manage this document I guess it will deteriorate. We do need to maintain the NOTICE and LICENSE files,
> though we don't really "have to" maintain this page.
>
> -David

I do know that we need to maintain the NOTICE and LICENSE files. Actually my 1st question (some weeks ago) was more complete: if
this document is not updated each time a change happens in OFBiz then we should, at least, mark it as deprecated (or even completly
remove it?), else maybe someone will take it as reference, nothing worse than wrong documentation. We could for instance explain why
it's there, and mark it deprecated, but if anybody care to maintain it (I tried my best to do so, but I gave up recently as found
myself to be almost alone to do so) why not drop it simply ?

Opinions?

Jacques

[Adam Heath-2]

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> BTW, it's a bit out of subject but I asked recently if we should stll
> maintain
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Libraries+Included+in+OFBiz,
> because if I recall well lately it was not done, but nobody answered to
> my question.
> So here it is again :o) should the community continue to maintain this
> document or not ? In other word are there still some persons interested
> by this document? For what is it used now ?
>
> Without answers I will consider that it's not important anymore, but I
> don't think so, it could turn in a very convenient document at any
> moment....

That page needs to be automated.  Expand the syntax of LICENSE in
trunk, to include more metadata that is easier to extract, and convert
it into html.

Having the same info copied to multiple places, maintained by hand, is
the wrong approach.

ps: It's common etiquette to change the subject when converting one
thread to another discussion topic

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]>

> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> BTW, it's a bit out of subject but I asked recently if we should stll
>> maintain
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Libraries+Included+in+OFBiz,
>> because if I recall well lately it was not done, but nobody answered to
>> my question.
>> So here it is again :o) should the community continue to maintain this
>> document or not ? In other word are there still some persons interested
>> by this document? For what is it used now ?
>>
>> Without answers I will consider that it's not important anymore, but I
>> don't think so, it could turn in a very convenient document at any
>> moment....
>
> That page needs to be automated.  Expand the syntax of LICENSE in
> trunk, to include more metadata that is easier to extract, and convert
> it into html.
>
> Having the same info copied to multiple places, maintained by hand, is
> the wrong approach.
>
> ps: It's common etiquette to change the subject when converting one
> thread to another discussion topic

Yes, sorry for the thread hijacking, I wonder if this page is worth such a work, we could simply refer to NOTICE and LICENCE.
I think in the meantime I will mark it as deprecated.

Jacques

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]>

> Adam Heath wrote:
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hans, if the reason you don't do commit breakups is because you don't
>>>> have time, then that is not a valid reason.  Being an ofbiz committer
>>>> *requires* you to do this extra work.  That is non-negotiable.
>>> Where is the stone this is etched in? I don't recall ever seeing any fire from heaven that etched this into stone, and I don't
>>> remember ever discussing and agreeing to any such thing.
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
>
> Granted, the thing I am pointing out was quoted from me, but I wasn't
> the one who put it into that page.

Yes I added them, I often follow your advices about reviewing (and others as well) because I know you have this Debian experience.

Jacques

> This same page says to do no harm.  How is it possible to ensure that
> you do no harm, if you are committing 10 different things all at once?
> Maybe you(any you, not just you David) can handle super huge commits.
> But what about in the future, 6 or 18 months down the road, when you
> have moved on to other things.  Are you saying you can go back to any
> point in time, and immediately understand what you were doing at the time?
>
> Now, consider some other person, who is *not* you, who is a completely
> different background, was raised in a different society, has different
> preconceptions, not to mention different desired features.  Will this
> supposed person be able to look at this large set of changes, all
> combined, and be able to understand it?
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: Libraries included in ofbiz: was Re: svn commit: r902716 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/images/webapp/images/rate/
specialpurpose/ebay/ specialpurpose/ebay/config/ specialpurpose/ebay/data/ specialpurpose/ebay/data/helpdata/
specialpurpose/ebay/ser

> From: "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> BTW, it's a bit out of subject but I asked recently if we should stll
>>> maintain
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Libraries+Included+in+OFBiz,
>>> because if I recall well lately it was not done, but nobody answered to
>>> my question.
>>> So here it is again :o) should the community continue to maintain this
>>> document or not ? In other word are there still some persons interested
>>> by this document? For what is it used now ?
>>>
>>> Without answers I will consider that it's not important anymore, but I
>>> don't think so, it could turn in a very convenient document at any
>>> moment....
>>
>> That page needs to be automated.  Expand the syntax of LICENSE in
>> trunk, to include more metadata that is easier to extract, and convert
>> it into html.
>>
>> Having the same info copied to multiple places, maintained by hand, is
>> the wrong approach.
>>
>> ps: It's common etiquette to change the subject when converting one
>> thread to another discussion topic
>
> Yes, sorry for the thread hijacking, I wonder if this page is worth such a work, we could simply refer to NOTICE and LICENCE.
> I think in the meantime I will mark it as deprecated.
>
> Jacques

Done, marked http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Libraries+Included+in+OFBiz,
 as deprecated

Jacques

[hans_bakker]

Hi all OFBiz supporters!

woooow you all had a busy day yesterday! I had a good night sleep when
most of it happened. Below the original message what started it all and
my answer on it.

And then another 58(!) messages followed the 2 below.

First my apologies if i did offend anybody with this commit. I think the
commit itself is very useful and we are not finished yet, but sure it
was big. As this was a complete new feature independent of the current
ebay component features I thought it was not such a problem. 10 small
updates in one go or one big one what is the difference if everything is
new and not related to existing code anyway. But as i said we will try
harder.

Reading all these messages, I see a lot of passion from a lot of people
with different interests. Some are solely technical oriented, others
more functional, others who only want improve existing functionality,
others who want new functionality and some want to improve the
documentation side of things.

So this is surely a good thing, with a big disadvantage: emotions.
Because of these emotions often things go in the personal direction. One
comment i can remember well:

Judge commits on the functional and technical benefits and ignore the
persons name who did it.

I am aware that some of my many commits (at the moment a bit less) but
last year an average of 3 per day, for 7 days a week sometimes have
errors. I always try to fix these as quick as we can. Why? because i
have the same passion as all of you.

So please lets work together, and build on each others work and not try
to brake it down.

Regards,
Hans



On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 06:28 +0700, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> comment accepted, i am trying to get my people to provide stuff in
> smaller pieces. Not always easy but we try to do better.
>
> Regards,
> hans
>
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 12:28 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > [hidden email] wrote:
> > > Author: hansbak
> > > Date: Mon Jan 25 06:26:23 2010
> > > New Revision: 902716
> > >
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=902716&view=rev
> > > Log:
> > >
> > >  function leave feedback and screen
> > > - function auto relist item and screen
> > > - Get  feedback data from ebay site and save into ofbiz.
> > > - Add rate pictures into framework/images/webapp/images
> > > - screen for show awaiting feedback and recent feedback from buyer
> > > - help screens are provided
> >
> > this was a bad commit, too many things done at once.  Please try to be
> > considerate of long-term maintainability, having small commits makes
> > it easier to verify and debug.

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

[Adam Heath-2]

Hans Bakker wrote:
> I am aware that some of my many commits (at the moment a bit less) but
> last year an average of 3 per day, for 7 days a week sometimes have
> errors. I always try to fix these as quick as we can. Why? because i
> have the same passion as all of you.

Hmm, interesting datapoint.  So here are some numbers to back up that
claim:

      2 Author: sichen <sichen@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
      3 Author: asf-sync-process
<asf-sync-process@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
      3 Author: ruppert <ruppert@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
      5 Author: byersa <byersa@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
      8 Author: erwan <erwan@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
      9 Author: eckardjf <eckardjf@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
     21 Author: chrisg <chrisg@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
     45 Author: bibryam <bibryam@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
     97 Author: jaz <jaz@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
    163 Author: mrisaliti <mrisaliti@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
    203 Author: buscob <buscob@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
    207 Author: jonesde <jonesde@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
    211 Author: adrianc <adrianc@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
    286 Author: jacopoc <jacopoc@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
    310 Author: mor <mor@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
    325 Author: lektran <lektran@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
    336 Author: apatel <apatel@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
    429 Author: ashish <ashish@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
    466 Author: doogie <doogie@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
    697 Author: hansbak <hansbak@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>
   1147 Author: jleroux <jleroux@13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68>

This is for the year of 2009.  So no, you don't do 3 per day; 1.9 is
the actual number.  If you are considering just the work week(5 days),
then the number approaches 2.67.  However, ofbiz is 365/7, so you
can't consider the work week.

Again, these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.  They
really don't mean a whole lot.