Suggest branch rather than release strategy?
Locked
1234
1234
Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?
 
|
Ron, we get that you really like the idea of sub-projects. The only
positive I can see about a sub-project is that the component gets to stick with the Apache brand/trademark, I'm pretty sure that's the only positive I've seen you mention that doesn't also apply to an external project. With the correct marketing and promotion of an external project I'm sure we could virtually close that gap. Cons on the other-hand: 1. Still ultimately the responsibility of the TLP PMC 2. Burden of setting up all infrastructure required by the sub-project 3. Sub-projects are still bound by the constraints of the ASF community. If Adrian or whoever wants to do something in an external project, he can just do it, no votes, no repetitive discussions seeking consensus, none of the frustration that comes from a community driven project. From your point of view that may seem like a negative but trust me, for a piece of work you plan to take ownership of and push forward with, it's hugely liberating and allows progress at a much faster pace. Just ask David Jones, I'm sure he'd agree. 5. Sub-projects would generally (I guess) still be bound to follow OFBiz "best practices". An external project would have no such constraint and could look for new ways (for example) to render the UI through something like AngularJs/Ember/Backbone/insert-flavor-of-the-month-here or take a completely different approach in other areas without dirtying the waters of the core OFBiz project. This could well lead to innovations making their way back into the OFBiz project. I get that it's unlikely anyone will sway your opinion at this point but still, it's important to consider the negatives of your approach as well. Regards Scott On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Ron Wheeler <[hidden email]> wrote: > !) Sub-projects allow worthwhile projects to find new supporters through > better transparency, focused mission and clearer borders around the > knowledge needed to contribute. > > 2) I thought that Adrian was suggesting that Asset Management was an effort > that he would support > > 3) Just when people say that they don't want sub-projects, they turn around > and suggest activities and plans that look like sub-projects. > They just want to invent a new structure outside Apache to do this. > > Ron > > > On 28/11/2014 4:29 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >> >> Hi Adrian and everyone, >> >> I think this issue was discussed in multiple threads before. There seems >> to >> be a general agreement that resources are low. The question is then why >> sub-projects or forks or spinoffs? Why not just keep specialpurpose in the >> project? It's live functioning code even if not updated and it is after >> all >> secondary to the core applications. If anyone then wants to contribute >> they >> would be supervised by experts. >> >> IMHO whatever you choose whether sub-projects or forks would probably >> just >> kill those components. >> >> My 2 cents >> >> Taher Alkhateeb >> On Nov 29, 2014 12:15 AM, "Adrian Crum" >> <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> This conversation has stopped making any sense. >>> >>> The special purpose components are removed from releases because we don't >>> have enough resources to maintain them. Now there is interest in putting >>> them back, but we STILL don't have the resources to maintain them. A >>> suggestion was made to make them sub-projects, but that requires MORE >>> resources. So the suggestion was made to spin them off to separate >>> projects >>> where they can stand or fall on their own. The sub-project idea (as far >>> as >>> I can tell) is dead. >>> >>> What part of that aren't you understanding? >>> >>> Adrian Crum >>> Sandglass Software >>> www.sandglass-software.com >>> >>> On 11/28/2014 7:37 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>> >>>> On 28/11/2014 11:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree with Jacopo that OFBiz sub-projects will be nearly impossible >>>>> to maintain. That is why I suggested moving special purpose components >>>>> to separate projects. >>>>> >>>>> I am willing to move one component to a separate project as a trial >>>>> run. I have no interest in being a "chair of a sub-PMC." >>>>> >>>> Who would you be willing to have as leader and chief architect? >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>> >>>>> On 11/28/2014 4:12 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Can someone on the PMC or a current committer find out what has to be >>>>>> done to set up an Apacahe sub-project in terms of administration >>>>>> (might >>>>>> be nothing) and fixing the SCM access so that committers to the >>>>>> sub-project are not required to be committers to the core and >>>>>> framework. >>>>>> This may not be possible from a technical sense but at least it should >>>>>> be possible to organize the SCM so it is clear what sub-project >>>>>> committers are supposed to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> If Adrian is willing to act as Chair of the sub-PMC, that would be a >>>>>> great start. >>>>>> I will join on the documentation side to help set up the sub-project >>>>>> doc >>>>>> structure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> >>>>>> On 27/11/2014 10:31 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be willing to spin off Asset Maintenance to a separate >>>>>>> project. I was thinking it could be a good test-run of the concept. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/27/2014 2:16 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I looked a bit back. Even if it's not clearly related I trace this >>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>> to the slim-down effort. We can forget it since nobody never >>>>>>>> complained >>>>>>>> (pfew...). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you proposed to move some component from specialpurpose to >>>>>>>> extras. >>>>>>>> As you said, not every people were happy with it (at least Pierre >>>>>>>> and in >>>>>>>> a less measure I) >>>>>>>> I then suggested some components to keep >>>>>>>> markmail.org/message/4camcprzximkcftc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <<assetmaint >>>>>>>> ecommerce >>>>>>>> example* >>>>>>>> pos >>>>>>>> maybe myportal? >>>>>>>> projectmgr >>>>>>>> scrum >>>>>>>> and maybe webpos?>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In a very recent thread http://markmail.org/message/ctusiepnuciofc32 >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> suggested to associate people with components >>>>>>>> <<project manager (Pierre Smits?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> scrum (Hans?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> examples and ext (at least me) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> myportal (French people use portals, not sure for myportal?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When I look now at my 1st list, obviously I can also support the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> POS >>>>>>>> even if I have less interest in it now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pierre at http://markmail.org/message/n23oyye2i24kqzpg suggested >>>>>>>> HHFacility, ASSETMAINT, CMSSITE, PROJECTMGR, MYPORTAL, SCRUM, etc. >>>>>>>> I don't like the etc. ;) but I can agree to add >>>>>>>> HHFacility and CMSSITE to my list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also in this list birt is missing, clearly at least Chatree has an >>>>>>>> interest in it and knows how to maintain it. >>>>>>>> I don't know if Anil or/and Adrian have still an interest in >>>>>>>> ASSETMAINT >>>>>>>> but anyway it seems it's worth to keep it. >>>>>>>> HHFacility does not need much work to maintain >>>>>>>> For CMSSITE I'm unsure, but it's interesting for the online help >>>>>>>> (too >>>>>>>> bad BJ is no longer with us) >>>>>>>> BTWcmssite/cms/APACHE_OFBIZ_HTML >>>>>>>> <https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/cmssite/cms/APACHE_OFBIZ_HTML> >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> no longer working (was still in August in trunk demo) I will >>>>>>>> investigate >>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At http://markmail.org/message/5dbs3g3vbdfo7dlx I wrote >>>>>>>> <<A moment I even thought about Attic for some unmaintained >>>>>>>> components >>>>>>>> (ebaystore?, googlebase?, googlecheckout?, jetty?, webpos?, ...), >>>>>>>> WHO >>>>>>>> cares?>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But this is not a good idea. Obviously we have some responsabilities >>>>>>>> with our users. >>>>>>>> Now I still wonder about who is really using appserver, ebaystore, >>>>>>>> googlebase, googlecheckou, oagis and jetty components... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is what I can say so far >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HTH >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 14/11/2014 14:20, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It was a long discussion that was done in the public lists and I >>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>> want to rehash it (you have been part of it for sure): there were >>>>>>>>> concerns >>>>>>>>> and discussions about duplicated jars, poor quality code, stale >>>>>>>>> code, >>>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>>> with questionable licenses etc... on the other side there were >>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>> worried about removing features from the system etc... >>>>>>>>> I think it would be better to address each component individually >>>>>>>>> and, >>>>>>>>> since you would like to "cope with missing specialpurpose >>>>>>>>> components in >>>>>>>>> released packages", this is why I am asking you what are the >>>>>>>>> components >>>>>>>>> that should be included in the trunk/release branch/releases. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think we need to be sure of what we are doing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1st question, is why in the 1st place we did that? What pushed us >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> do so? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le 14/11/2014 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What is your preference? Would you like to see them all in the >>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> packages? Some of them only? Which ones? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is the easiest part, I was more thinking about how much >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> downloaded >>>>>>>>>>>> by users. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway this was just an idea to help user to cope with missing >>>>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose components in released packages. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now a question comes to my mind, I don't clearly remember the >>>>>>>>>>>> reasons we >>>>>>>>>>>> decided to remove them. Why keeping them in the releases >>>>>>>>>>>> branches >>>>>>>>>>>> but not >>>>>>>>>>>> not in released packages is not clear to me. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Jacopo kind of answered at >>>>>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/ >>>>>>>>>>>> w3xw6lipifdeks3z >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually we need to clarify 1st which components to keep active >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>> branches. For now it seems only ecommerce which is for me too >>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive. >>>>>>>>>>>> And then discuss about why not doing the same in released >>>>>>>>>>>> packages >>>>>>>>>>>> (sorry >>>>>>>>>>>> if I missed some arguments here). >>>>>>>>>>>> For that we need first to exactly know which components affect >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> ones. >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe at this stage we don't want to send any specialpurpose >>>>>>>>>>>> component >>>>>>>>>>>> to Attic, but this might be discussed also. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 22:51, Pierre Smits a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is not difficult to assess. Do a download from trunk, >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> see how >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> many Mb's are transferred. Do a ./ant clean-all. Subsequently >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove all >>>>>>>>>>>>> hidden files in .svn folders. Finally do a zip of the cleaned >>>>>>>>>>>>> download >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the original amount of Mb's with the size of the zip >>>>>>>>>>>>> file. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference is what is saved on storage and transfer cost of >>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk >>>>>>>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now multiply that with the number of branches you had in mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 13 nov. 2014 om 22:32 heeft Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> het volgende geschreven: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 21:25, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it Apache's concern that while people may be free to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server capacity is not free nor unlimited? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that OFBiz really puts a big load on the ASF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users are not supposed to be downloading from the SVN. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are supposed to get downloads from local mirrors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said it :) At the moment I don't fear any overload on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the svn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> server >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from users downloading from releases branches instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> released >>>>>>>>>>>>>> packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz is not Tomcat ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I must say I have no measures, so you got a point >>>>>>>>>>>>>> until-we/if-we-can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discover that. Because users can already do that, I think it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fair to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this method as long as it's reasonable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, having that suggested in a TLP project could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse from the Board, but let's be pragmatic, numbers should >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell us >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth (if can get them) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may be the practical side of Apache's urging to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> following their guidelines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes for Tomcat, HTTPD or such that's understandable. For >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "fear" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not a problem. Can we discuss with the board in case, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiding behind unknown numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/11/2014 3:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 20:03, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this solve ASF's issue about having users access the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> servers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't try to solve an issue, just to propose an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free user choice, but with more elements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you put on the mirrors and how do you stop users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessing the development SVN which is ASF's concern? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things stay as they are, it's only that we inform our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way is possible and we give them enough elements of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice, it's called freedom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/11/2014 1:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the licence free issues (an other related stuff) we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclaimer in the wiki page where all alternatives would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 12:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the past the ASF Board asked to the OFBiz PMC to fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy of the project by providing officially voted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thru >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ASF mirrors: at that time we were pushing the users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Officially asking the user to use a release branch would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk but would bring back similar concerns: an official >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to publish a product to the outside of the project in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarantee >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> License free issues etc... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a recent user ML threadhttp://markmail.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message/ivjocjr2ull7lwqe I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested we could propose our users to use a release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than downloaded packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that we could expose this way of doing in our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> download >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> page, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better with a link to an explaining page (in details) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wiki. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know it's not the recommended way of doing at the ASF. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the OFBiz differences when compared with other TLPs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly libs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and even mostly jars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of us are actually using this way in their custom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a feeling it would not only help our users but also us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> > > > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: [hidden email] > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > |
Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?
|
|
On 28/11/2014 5:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
> Ron, we get that you really like the idea of sub-projects. The only > positive I can see about a sub-project is that the component gets to > stick with the Apache brand/trademark, I'm pretty sure that's the only > positive I've seen you mention that doesn't also apply to an external > project. With the correct marketing and promotion of an external > project I'm sure we could virtually close that gap. > > Cons on the other-hand: > 1. Still ultimately the responsibility of the TLP PMC True but not on a day to day basis > 2. Burden of setting up all infrastructure required by the sub-project This does need to be looked at. Clearly other projects feel that the benefits outweigh the costs. > 3. Sub-projects are still bound by the constraints of the ASF > community. If Adrian or whoever wants to do something in an external > project, he can just do it, no votes, no repetitive discussions > seeking consensus, none of the frustration that comes from a community > driven project. From your point of view that may seem like a negative > but trust me, for a piece of work you plan to take ownership of and > push forward with, it's hugely liberating and allows progress at a > much faster pace. Just ask David Jones, I'm sure he'd agree. This project is not short of forks. Anyone can do this but you lose the advantage of building a team (unless you pay them). It also leads to duplication of effort and divergent products that dilute the results and confuses the market. If Adrian does a private fork of Asset Management, what is the effect on the users of the OFBiz version. Will people want to use a "better" private fork from an unknown source or stick with the Apache version even if it is less functional. Can the Apache project abandon a component if someone says that they will make a private fork? > 5. Sub-projects would generally (I guess) still be bound to follow > OFBiz "best practices". An external project would have no such > constraint and could look for new ways (for example) to render the UI > through something like > AngularJs/Ember/Backbone/insert-flavor-of-the-month-here or take a > completely different approach in other areas without dirtying the > waters of the core OFBiz project. This could well lead to innovations > making their way back into the OFBiz project. If that is someone's intention, then setting up a fork would be the best way to achieve this. I was thinking of modules that would integrate with the core and framework in a seamless fashion. This depends on a certain amount of technological clarity and consistency. > I get that it's unlikely anyone will sway your opinion at this point > but still, it's important to consider the negatives of your approach > as well. I still think on balance, that it is pretty clear that sub-projects is the right way to go but it is not a magic solution to the problems in the OFBiz project and will take some effort to achieve a good result. There is nothing to stop anyone from doing a private fork but I don't think that this is a good long-term plan and does nothing to build the OFBiz community or reduce the workload on the current team. > Regards > Scott > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Ron Wheeler > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> !) Sub-projects allow worthwhile projects to find new supporters through >> better transparency, focused mission and clearer borders around the >> knowledge needed to contribute. >> >> 2) I thought that Adrian was suggesting that Asset Management was an effort >> that he would support >> >> 3) Just when people say that they don't want sub-projects, they turn around >> and suggest activities and plans that look like sub-projects. >> They just want to invent a new structure outside Apache to do this. >> >> Ron >> >> >> On 28/11/2014 4:29 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >>> Hi Adrian and everyone, >>> >>> I think this issue was discussed in multiple threads before. There seems >>> to >>> be a general agreement that resources are low. The question is then why >>> sub-projects or forks or spinoffs? Why not just keep specialpurpose in the >>> project? It's live functioning code even if not updated and it is after >>> all >>> secondary to the core applications. If anyone then wants to contribute >>> they >>> would be supervised by experts. >>> >>> IMHO whatever you choose whether sub-projects or forks would probably >>> just >>> kill those components. >>> >>> My 2 cents >>> >>> Taher Alkhateeb >>> On Nov 29, 2014 12:15 AM, "Adrian Crum" >>> <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> This conversation has stopped making any sense. >>>> >>>> The special purpose components are removed from releases because we don't >>>> have enough resources to maintain them. Now there is interest in putting >>>> them back, but we STILL don't have the resources to maintain them. A >>>> suggestion was made to make them sub-projects, but that requires MORE >>>> resources. So the suggestion was made to spin them off to separate >>>> projects >>>> where they can stand or fall on their own. The sub-project idea (as far >>>> as >>>> I can tell) is dead. >>>> >>>> What part of that aren't you understanding? >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum >>>> Sandglass Software >>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>> >>>> On 11/28/2014 7:37 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 28/11/2014 11:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I agree with Jacopo that OFBiz sub-projects will be nearly impossible >>>>>> to maintain. That is why I suggested moving special purpose components >>>>>> to separate projects. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am willing to move one component to a separate project as a trial >>>>>> run. I have no interest in being a "chair of a sub-PMC." >>>>>> >>>>> Who would you be willing to have as leader and chief architect? >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/28/2014 4:12 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Can someone on the PMC or a current committer find out what has to be >>>>>>> done to set up an Apacahe sub-project in terms of administration >>>>>>> (might >>>>>>> be nothing) and fixing the SCM access so that committers to the >>>>>>> sub-project are not required to be committers to the core and >>>>>>> framework. >>>>>>> This may not be possible from a technical sense but at least it should >>>>>>> be possible to organize the SCM so it is clear what sub-project >>>>>>> committers are supposed to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If Adrian is willing to act as Chair of the sub-PMC, that would be a >>>>>>> great start. >>>>>>> I will join on the documentation side to help set up the sub-project >>>>>>> doc >>>>>>> structure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27/11/2014 10:31 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would be willing to spin off Asset Maintenance to a separate >>>>>>>> project. I was thinking it could be a good test-run of the concept. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/27/2014 2:16 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I looked a bit back. Even if it's not clearly related I trace this >>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>> to the slim-down effort. We can forget it since nobody never >>>>>>>>> complained >>>>>>>>> (pfew...). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then you proposed to move some component from specialpurpose to >>>>>>>>> extras. >>>>>>>>> As you said, not every people were happy with it (at least Pierre >>>>>>>>> and in >>>>>>>>> a less measure I) >>>>>>>>> I then suggested some components to keep >>>>>>>>> markmail.org/message/4camcprzximkcftc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <<assetmaint >>>>>>>>> ecommerce >>>>>>>>> example* >>>>>>>>> pos >>>>>>>>> maybe myportal? >>>>>>>>> projectmgr >>>>>>>>> scrum >>>>>>>>> and maybe webpos?>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In a very recent thread http://markmail.org/message/ctusiepnuciofc32 >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> suggested to associate people with components >>>>>>>>> <<project manager (Pierre Smits?) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> scrum (Hans?) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> examples and ext (at least me) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> myportal (French people use portals, not sure for myportal?) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When I look now at my 1st list, obviously I can also support the >>>>>>>>> POS >>>>>>>>> even if I have less interest in it now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pierre at http://markmail.org/message/n23oyye2i24kqzpg suggested >>>>>>>>> HHFacility, ASSETMAINT, CMSSITE, PROJECTMGR, MYPORTAL, SCRUM, etc. >>>>>>>>> I don't like the etc. ;) but I can agree to add >>>>>>>>> HHFacility and CMSSITE to my list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also in this list birt is missing, clearly at least Chatree has an >>>>>>>>> interest in it and knows how to maintain it. >>>>>>>>> I don't know if Anil or/and Adrian have still an interest in >>>>>>>>> ASSETMAINT >>>>>>>>> but anyway it seems it's worth to keep it. >>>>>>>>> HHFacility does not need much work to maintain >>>>>>>>> For CMSSITE I'm unsure, but it's interesting for the online help >>>>>>>>> (too >>>>>>>>> bad BJ is no longer with us) >>>>>>>>> BTWcmssite/cms/APACHE_OFBIZ_HTML >>>>>>>>> <https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/cmssite/cms/APACHE_OFBIZ_HTML> >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> no longer working (was still in August in trunk demo) I will >>>>>>>>> investigate >>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At http://markmail.org/message/5dbs3g3vbdfo7dlx I wrote >>>>>>>>> <<A moment I even thought about Attic for some unmaintained >>>>>>>>> components >>>>>>>>> (ebaystore?, googlebase?, googlecheckout?, jetty?, webpos?, ...), >>>>>>>>> WHO >>>>>>>>> cares?>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But this is not a good idea. Obviously we have some responsabilities >>>>>>>>> with our users. >>>>>>>>> Now I still wonder about who is really using appserver, ebaystore, >>>>>>>>> googlebase, googlecheckou, oagis and jetty components... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is what I can say so far >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HTH >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 14/11/2014 14:20, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It was a long discussion that was done in the public lists and I >>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>> want to rehash it (you have been part of it for sure): there were >>>>>>>>>> concerns >>>>>>>>>> and discussions about duplicated jars, poor quality code, stale >>>>>>>>>> code, >>>>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>>>> with questionable licenses etc... on the other side there were >>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>> worried about removing features from the system etc... >>>>>>>>>> I think it would be better to address each component individually >>>>>>>>>> and, >>>>>>>>>> since you would like to "cope with missing specialpurpose >>>>>>>>>> components in >>>>>>>>>> released packages", this is why I am asking you what are the >>>>>>>>>> components >>>>>>>>>> that should be included in the trunk/release branch/releases. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think we need to be sure of what we are doing. >>>>>>>>>>> 1st question, is why in the 1st place we did that? What pushed us >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> do so? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/11/2014 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What is your preference? Would you like to see them all in the >>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> packages? Some of them only? Which ones? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is the easiest part, I was more thinking about how much >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> downloaded >>>>>>>>>>>>> by users. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway this was just an idea to help user to cope with missing >>>>>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose components in released packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now a question comes to my mind, I don't clearly remember the >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons we >>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to remove them. Why keeping them in the releases >>>>>>>>>>>>> branches >>>>>>>>>>>>> but not >>>>>>>>>>>>> not in released packages is not clear to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Jacopo kind of answered at >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> w3xw6lipifdeks3z >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually we need to clarify 1st which components to keep active >>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>> branches. For now it seems only ecommerce which is for me too >>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive. >>>>>>>>>>>>> And then discuss about why not doing the same in released >>>>>>>>>>>>> packages >>>>>>>>>>>>> (sorry >>>>>>>>>>>>> if I missed some arguments here). >>>>>>>>>>>>> For that we need first to exactly know which components affect >>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>> ones. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe at this stage we don't want to send any specialpurpose >>>>>>>>>>>>> component >>>>>>>>>>>>> to Attic, but this might be discussed also. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 22:51, Pierre Smits a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not difficult to assess. Do a download from trunk, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> see how >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> many Mb's are transferred. Do a ./ant clean-all. Subsequently >>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hidden files in .svn folders. Finally do a zip of the cleaned >>>>>>>>>>>>>> download >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the original amount of Mb's with the size of the zip >>>>>>>>>>>>>> file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference is what is saved on storage and transfer cost of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk >>>>>>>>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now multiply that with the number of branches you had in mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 13 nov. 2014 om 22:32 heeft Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> het volgende geschreven: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 21:25, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it Apache's concern that while people may be free to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server capacity is not free nor unlimited? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that OFBiz really puts a big load on the ASF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users are not supposed to be downloading from the SVN. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are supposed to get downloads from local mirrors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said it :) At the moment I don't fear any overload on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the svn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from users downloading from releases branches instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz is not Tomcat ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I must say I have no measures, so you got a point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until-we/if-we-can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discover that. Because users can already do that, I think it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fair to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this method as long as it's reasonable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, having that suggested in a TLP project could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse from the Board, but let's be pragmatic, numbers should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth (if can get them) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may be the practical side of Apache's urging to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following their guidelines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes for Tomcat, HTTPD or such that's understandable. For >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "fear" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not a problem. Can we discuss with the board in case, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiding behind unknown numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/11/2014 3:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 20:03, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this solve ASF's issue about having users access the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> servers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't try to solve an issue, just to propose an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free user choice, but with more elements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you put on the mirrors and how do you stop users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessing the development SVN which is ASF's concern? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things stay as they are, it's only that we inform our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way is possible and we give them enough elements of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice, it's called freedom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/11/2014 1:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the licence free issues (an other related stuff) we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclaimer in the wiki page where all alternatives would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 12:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the past the ASF Board asked to the OFBiz PMC to fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy of the project by providing officially voted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thru >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ASF mirrors: at that time we were pushing the users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Officially asking the user to use a release branch would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk but would bring back similar concerns: an official >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to publish a product to the outside of the project in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarantee >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> License free issues etc... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a recent user ML threadhttp://markmail.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message/ivjocjr2ull7lwqe I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested we could propose our users to use a release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than downloaded packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that we could expose this way of doing in our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> download >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> page, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better with a link to an explaining page (in details) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wiki. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know it's not the recommended way of doing at the ASF. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the OFBiz differences when compared with other TLPs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly libs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and even mostly jars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of us are actually using this way in their custom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a feeling it would not only help our users but also us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> -- >> Ron Wheeler >> President >> Artifact Software Inc >> email: [hidden email] >> skype: ronaldmwheeler >> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >> -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: [hidden email] skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 |
Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?
|
|
A few responses below but all I really have left to say is that if Adrian
or anyone else wants to take a fork of any special purpose component and maintain it outside of the OFBiz project then I'm all for it. Assuming those forks made good progress on improving the component then I'd also be in favor of removing the them from OFBiz and helping to promote the external component. 1. So status quo then for sub-projects, what was gained in this regard? 2. Obviously there's a bias there because you're only ever going to see examples of a positive determination when looking at existing sub-projects. 3: > This project is not short of forks. The project is extremely short of external component/add-on forks. I don't care about entire project forks, that's a completely separate topic. I'm aware of very few external "special purpose"-type components and as I've mentioned before I think this is detrimental to the OFBiz product. > Anyone can do this but you lose the advantage of building a team (unless > you pay them). Huh? How exactly do you lose this advantage? Any open source project can build a team simply by being useful enough to enough people. It also leads to duplication of effort and divergent products that dilute > the results and confuses the market. I wasn't aware the component being discussed had any competitors. Regardless, others might argue it leads to innovation. I still think on balance, that it is pretty clear that sub-projects is the > right way to go but it is not a magic solution to the problems in the OFBiz > project and will take some effort to achieve a good result. > There is nothing to stop anyone from doing a private fork but I don't > think that this is a good long-term plan and does nothing to build the > OFBiz community or reduce the workload on the current team. It is very far from clear to me but you've expressed your views numerous times now and if the PMC ever do vote to create a sub-project I'm sure they'll take your opinions into account. Regards Scott On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Ron Wheeler < [hidden email]> wrote: > On 28/11/2014 5:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> Ron, we get that you really like the idea of sub-projects. The only >> positive I can see about a sub-project is that the component gets to >> stick with the Apache brand/trademark, I'm pretty sure that's the only >> positive I've seen you mention that doesn't also apply to an external >> project. With the correct marketing and promotion of an external >> project I'm sure we could virtually close that gap. >> >> Cons on the other-hand: >> 1. Still ultimately the responsibility of the TLP PMC >> > True but not on a day to day basis > >> 2. Burden of setting up all infrastructure required by the sub-project >> > This does need to be looked at. Clearly other projects feel that the > benefits outweigh the costs. > >> 3. Sub-projects are still bound by the constraints of the ASF >> community. If Adrian or whoever wants to do something in an external >> project, he can just do it, no votes, no repetitive discussions >> seeking consensus, none of the frustration that comes from a community >> driven project. From your point of view that may seem like a negative >> but trust me, for a piece of work you plan to take ownership of and >> push forward with, it's hugely liberating and allows progress at a >> much faster pace. Just ask David Jones, I'm sure he'd agree. >> > This project is not short of forks. > Anyone can do this but you lose the advantage of building a team (unless > you pay them). > It also leads to duplication of effort and divergent products that dilute > the results and confuses the market. > If Adrian does a private fork of Asset Management, what is the effect on > the users of the OFBiz version. > Will people want to use a "better" private fork from an unknown source or > stick with the Apache version even if it is less functional. > Can the Apache project abandon a component if someone says that they will > make a private fork? > > 5. Sub-projects would generally (I guess) still be bound to follow >> OFBiz "best practices". An external project would have no such >> constraint and could look for new ways (for example) to render the UI >> through something like >> AngularJs/Ember/Backbone/insert-flavor-of-the-month-here or take a >> completely different approach in other areas without dirtying the >> waters of the core OFBiz project. This could well lead to innovations >> making their way back into the OFBiz project. >> > If that is someone's intention, then setting up a fork would be the best > way to achieve this. > I was thinking of modules that would integrate with the core and framework > in a seamless fashion. > This depends on a certain amount of technological clarity and consistency. > > I get that it's unlikely anyone will sway your opinion at this point >> but still, it's important to consider the negatives of your approach >> as well. >> > I still think on balance, that it is pretty clear that sub-projects is the > right way to go but it is not a magic solution to the problems in the OFBiz > project and will take some effort to achieve a good result. > There is nothing to stop anyone from doing a private fork but I don't > think that this is a good long-term plan and does nothing to build the > OFBiz community or reduce the workload on the current team. > > > Regards >> Scott >> >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Ron Wheeler >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> !) Sub-projects allow worthwhile projects to find new supporters through >>> better transparency, focused mission and clearer borders around the >>> knowledge needed to contribute. >>> >>> 2) I thought that Adrian was suggesting that Asset Management was an >>> effort >>> that he would support >>> >>> 3) Just when people say that they don't want sub-projects, they turn >>> around >>> and suggest activities and plans that look like sub-projects. >>> They just want to invent a new structure outside Apache to do this. >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>> On 28/11/2014 4:29 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Adrian and everyone, >>>> >>>> I think this issue was discussed in multiple threads before. There seems >>>> to >>>> be a general agreement that resources are low. The question is then why >>>> sub-projects or forks or spinoffs? Why not just keep specialpurpose in >>>> the >>>> project? It's live functioning code even if not updated and it is after >>>> all >>>> secondary to the core applications. If anyone then wants to contribute >>>> they >>>> would be supervised by experts. >>>> >>>> IMHO whatever you choose whether sub-projects or forks would probably >>>> just >>>> kill those components. >>>> >>>> My 2 cents >>>> >>>> Taher Alkhateeb >>>> On Nov 29, 2014 12:15 AM, "Adrian Crum" >>>> <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> This conversation has stopped making any sense. >>>>> >>>>> The special purpose components are removed from releases because we >>>>> don't >>>>> have enough resources to maintain them. Now there is interest in >>>>> putting >>>>> them back, but we STILL don't have the resources to maintain them. A >>>>> suggestion was made to make them sub-projects, but that requires MORE >>>>> resources. So the suggestion was made to spin them off to separate >>>>> projects >>>>> where they can stand or fall on their own. The sub-project idea (as far >>>>> as >>>>> I can tell) is dead. >>>>> >>>>> What part of that aren't you understanding? >>>>> >>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>> >>>>> On 11/28/2014 7:37 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 28/11/2014 11:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with Jacopo that OFBiz sub-projects will be nearly impossible >>>>>>> to maintain. That is why I suggested moving special purpose >>>>>>> components >>>>>>> to separate projects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am willing to move one component to a separate project as a trial >>>>>>> run. I have no interest in being a "chair of a sub-PMC." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who would you be willing to have as leader and chief architect? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/28/2014 4:12 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can someone on the PMC or a current committer find out what has to >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> done to set up an Apacahe sub-project in terms of administration >>>>>>>> (might >>>>>>>> be nothing) and fixing the SCM access so that committers to the >>>>>>>> sub-project are not required to be committers to the core and >>>>>>>> framework. >>>>>>>> This may not be possible from a technical sense but at least it >>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>> be possible to organize the SCM so it is clear what sub-project >>>>>>>> committers are supposed to do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If Adrian is willing to act as Chair of the sub-PMC, that would be a >>>>>>>> great start. >>>>>>>> I will join on the documentation side to help set up the sub-project >>>>>>>> doc >>>>>>>> structure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 27/11/2014 10:31 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would be willing to spin off Asset Maintenance to a separate >>>>>>>>> project. I was thinking it could be a good test-run of the concept. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2014 2:16 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I looked a bit back. Even if it's not clearly related I trace this >>>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>>> to the slim-down effort. We can forget it since nobody never >>>>>>>>>> complained >>>>>>>>>> (pfew...). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then you proposed to move some component from specialpurpose to >>>>>>>>>> extras. >>>>>>>>>> As you said, not every people were happy with it (at least Pierre >>>>>>>>>> and in >>>>>>>>>> a less measure I) >>>>>>>>>> I then suggested some components to keep >>>>>>>>>> markmail.org/message/4camcprzximkcftc >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <<assetmaint >>>>>>>>>> ecommerce >>>>>>>>>> example* >>>>>>>>>> pos >>>>>>>>>> maybe myportal? >>>>>>>>>> projectmgr >>>>>>>>>> scrum >>>>>>>>>> and maybe webpos?>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In a very recent thread http://markmail.org/message/ >>>>>>>>>> ctusiepnuciofc32 >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> suggested to associate people with components >>>>>>>>>> <<project manager (Pierre Smits?) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> scrum (Hans?) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> examples and ext (at least me) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> myportal (French people use portals, not sure for >>>>>>>>>> myportal?) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When I look now at my 1st list, obviously I can also support >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> POS >>>>>>>>>> even if I have less interest in it now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Pierre at http://markmail.org/message/n23oyye2i24kqzpg suggested >>>>>>>>>> HHFacility, ASSETMAINT, CMSSITE, PROJECTMGR, MYPORTAL, SCRUM, etc. >>>>>>>>>> I don't like the etc. ;) but I can agree to add >>>>>>>>>> HHFacility and CMSSITE to my list >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also in this list birt is missing, clearly at least Chatree has an >>>>>>>>>> interest in it and knows how to maintain it. >>>>>>>>>> I don't know if Anil or/and Adrian have still an interest in >>>>>>>>>> ASSETMAINT >>>>>>>>>> but anyway it seems it's worth to keep it. >>>>>>>>>> HHFacility does not need much work to maintain >>>>>>>>>> For CMSSITE I'm unsure, but it's interesting for the online help >>>>>>>>>> (too >>>>>>>>>> bad BJ is no longer with us) >>>>>>>>>> BTWcmssite/cms/APACHE_OFBIZ_HTML >>>>>>>>>> <https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/cmssite/cms/APACHE_ >>>>>>>>>> OFBIZ_HTML> >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> no longer working (was still in August in trunk demo) I will >>>>>>>>>> investigate >>>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At http://markmail.org/message/5dbs3g3vbdfo7dlx I wrote >>>>>>>>>> <<A moment I even thought about Attic for some unmaintained >>>>>>>>>> components >>>>>>>>>> (ebaystore?, googlebase?, googlecheckout?, jetty?, webpos?, ...), >>>>>>>>>> WHO >>>>>>>>>> cares?>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But this is not a good idea. Obviously we have some >>>>>>>>>> responsabilities >>>>>>>>>> with our users. >>>>>>>>>> Now I still wonder about who is really using appserver, ebaystore, >>>>>>>>>> googlebase, googlecheckou, oagis and jetty components... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is what I can say so far >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HTH >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le 14/11/2014 14:20, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It was a long discussion that was done in the public lists and I >>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>> want to rehash it (you have been part of it for sure): there were >>>>>>>>>>> concerns >>>>>>>>>>> and discussions about duplicated jars, poor quality code, stale >>>>>>>>>>> code, >>>>>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>>>>> with questionable licenses etc... on the other side there were >>>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>>> worried about removing features from the system etc... >>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be better to address each component individually >>>>>>>>>>> and, >>>>>>>>>>> since you would like to "cope with missing specialpurpose >>>>>>>>>>> components in >>>>>>>>>>> released packages", this is why I am asking you what are the >>>>>>>>>>> components >>>>>>>>>>> that should be included in the trunk/release branch/releases. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to be sure of what we are doing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1st question, is why in the 1st place we did that? What pushed >>>>>>>>>>>> us >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> do so? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/11/2014 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What is your preference? Would you like to see them all in >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> packages? Some of them only? Which ones? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the easiest part, I was more thinking about how >>>>>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> downloaded >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by users. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway this was just an idea to help user to cope with missing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose components in released packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now a question comes to my mind, I don't clearly remember the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to remove them. Why keeping them in the releases >>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in released packages is not clear to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Jacopo kind of answered at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> w3xw6lipifdeks3z >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually we need to clarify 1st which components to keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>> active >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches. For now it seems only ecommerce which is for me too >>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then discuss about why not doing the same in released >>>>>>>>>>>>>> packages >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (sorry >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if I missed some arguments here). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For that we need first to exactly know which components affect >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe at this stage we don't want to send any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose >>>>>>>>>>>>>> component >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Attic, but this might be discussed also. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 22:51, Pierre Smits a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not difficult to assess. Do a download from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> many Mb's are transferred. Do a ./ant clean-all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subsequently >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hidden files in .svn folders. Finally do a zip of the cleaned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> download >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the original amount of Mb's with the size of the zip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference is what is saved on storage and transfer cost of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now multiply that with the number of branches you had in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 13 nov. 2014 om 22:32 heeft Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> het volgende geschreven: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 21:25, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it Apache's concern that while people may be free to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server capacity is not free nor unlimited? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that OFBiz really puts a big load on the ASF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users are not supposed to be downloading from the SVN. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are supposed to get downloads from local mirrors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said it :) At the moment I don't fear any overload >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the svn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from users downloading from releases branches instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz is not Tomcat ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I must say I have no measures, so you got a point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until-we/if-we-can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discover that. Because users can already do that, I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fair to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this method as long as it's reasonable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, having that suggested in a TLP project could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse from the Board, but let's be pragmatic, numbers should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth (if can get them) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may be the practical side of Apache's urging to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following their guidelines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes for Tomcat, HTTPD or such that's understandable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "fear" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not a problem. Can we discuss with the board in case, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiding behind unknown numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/11/2014 3:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 20:03, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this solve ASF's issue about having users access >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> servers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't try to solve an issue, just to propose an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free user choice, but with more elements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you put on the mirrors and how do you stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessing the development SVN which is ASF's concern? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things stay as they are, it's only that we inform our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way is possible and we give them enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice, it's called freedom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/11/2014 1:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the licence free issues (an other related stuff) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclaimer in the wiki page where all alternatives would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 12:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the past the ASF Board asked to the OFBiz PMC to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy of the project by providing officially voted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thru >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ASF mirrors: at that time we were pushing the users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Officially asking the user to use a release branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk but would bring back similar concerns: an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> official >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to publish a product to the outside of the project in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarantee >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> License free issues etc... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a recent user ML threadhttp://markmail.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message/ivjocjr2ull7lwqe I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested we could propose our users to use a release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than downloaded packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that we could expose this way of doing in our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> download >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> page, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better with a link to an explaining page (in details) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wiki. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know it's not the recommended way of doing at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the OFBiz differences when compared with other TLPs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly libs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and even mostly jars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of us are actually using this way in their custom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a feeling it would not only help our users but also us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> -- >>> Ron Wheeler >>> President >>> Artifact Software Inc >>> email: [hidden email] >>> skype: ronaldmwheeler >>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >>> >>> > > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: [hidden email] > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > > |
Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?
|
|
On 28/11/2014 7:06 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
> A few responses below but all I really have left to say is that if Adrian > or anyone else wants to take a fork of any special purpose component and > maintain it outside of the OFBiz project then I'm all for it. Assuming > those forks made good progress on improving the component then I'd also be > in favor of removing the them from OFBiz and helping to promote the > external component. > > 1. So status quo then for sub-projects, what was gained in this regard? > > 2. Obviously there's a bias there because you're only ever going to see > examples of a positive determination when looking at existing sub-projects. > > 3: > >> This project is not short of forks. > > The project is extremely short of external component/add-on forks. I > don't care about entire project forks, that's a completely separate topic. > I'm aware of very few external "special purpose"-type components and as > I've mentioned before I think this is detrimental to the OFBiz product. complementary ecosystem. The alternative that most companies seem to take is to fork the whole thing and fix it to meet their customers' needs. I hope that encouraging internal sub-projects will help clarify the mission of the core and framework and make it easier to develop the special purpose components that you want. > >> Anyone can do this but you lose the advantage of building a team (unless >> you pay them). > > Huh? How exactly do you lose this advantage? Any open source project can > build a team simply by being useful enough to enough people. There is more to it than that. The community has to be useful as well. It has to be easier to get involved than to go on your own. There has to be a low barrier to entry. It has to be easy to determine how your efforts will augment the activities of the whole. The potential results have to be easy to determine. > > It also leads to duplication of effort and divergent products that dilute >> the results and confuses the market. > > I wasn't aware the component being discussed had any competitors. > Regardless, others might argue it leads to innovation. The whole project has forks. > I still think on balance, that it is pretty clear that sub-projects is the >> right way to go but it is not a magic solution to the problems in the OFBiz >> project and will take some effort to achieve a good result. >> There is nothing to stop anyone from doing a private fork but I don't >> think that this is a good long-term plan and does nothing to build the >> OFBiz community or reduce the workload on the current team. > > It is very far from clear to me but you've expressed your views numerous > times now and if the PMC ever do vote to create a sub-project I'm sure > they'll take your opinions into account. In the meantime, I will continue to try to dispel some of the misunderstandings that swirl about the topic, as they occur and to support anyone who wants to try to start a sub-project that makes sense. > > Regards > Scott > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Ron Wheeler < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> On 28/11/2014 5:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >> >>> Ron, we get that you really like the idea of sub-projects. The only >>> positive I can see about a sub-project is that the component gets to >>> stick with the Apache brand/trademark, I'm pretty sure that's the only >>> positive I've seen you mention that doesn't also apply to an external >>> project. With the correct marketing and promotion of an external >>> project I'm sure we could virtually close that gap. >>> >>> Cons on the other-hand: >>> 1. Still ultimately the responsibility of the TLP PMC >>> >> True but not on a day to day basis >> >>> 2. Burden of setting up all infrastructure required by the sub-project >>> >> This does need to be looked at. Clearly other projects feel that the >> benefits outweigh the costs. >> >>> 3. Sub-projects are still bound by the constraints of the ASF >>> community. If Adrian or whoever wants to do something in an external >>> project, he can just do it, no votes, no repetitive discussions >>> seeking consensus, none of the frustration that comes from a community >>> driven project. From your point of view that may seem like a negative >>> but trust me, for a piece of work you plan to take ownership of and >>> push forward with, it's hugely liberating and allows progress at a >>> much faster pace. Just ask David Jones, I'm sure he'd agree. >>> >> This project is not short of forks. >> Anyone can do this but you lose the advantage of building a team (unless >> you pay them). >> It also leads to duplication of effort and divergent products that dilute >> the results and confuses the market. >> If Adrian does a private fork of Asset Management, what is the effect on >> the users of the OFBiz version. >> Will people want to use a "better" private fork from an unknown source or >> stick with the Apache version even if it is less functional. >> Can the Apache project abandon a component if someone says that they will >> make a private fork? >> >> 5. Sub-projects would generally (I guess) still be bound to follow >>> OFBiz "best practices". An external project would have no such >>> constraint and could look for new ways (for example) to render the UI >>> through something like >>> AngularJs/Ember/Backbone/insert-flavor-of-the-month-here or take a >>> completely different approach in other areas without dirtying the >>> waters of the core OFBiz project. This could well lead to innovations >>> making their way back into the OFBiz project. >>> >> If that is someone's intention, then setting up a fork would be the best >> way to achieve this. >> I was thinking of modules that would integrate with the core and framework >> in a seamless fashion. >> This depends on a certain amount of technological clarity and consistency. >> >> I get that it's unlikely anyone will sway your opinion at this point >>> but still, it's important to consider the negatives of your approach >>> as well. >>> >> I still think on balance, that it is pretty clear that sub-projects is the >> right way to go but it is not a magic solution to the problems in the OFBiz >> project and will take some effort to achieve a good result. >> There is nothing to stop anyone from doing a private fork but I don't >> think that this is a good long-term plan and does nothing to build the >> OFBiz community or reduce the workload on the current team. >> >> >> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Ron Wheeler >>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> !) Sub-projects allow worthwhile projects to find new supporters through >>>> better transparency, focused mission and clearer borders around the >>>> knowledge needed to contribute. >>>> >>>> 2) I thought that Adrian was suggesting that Asset Management was an >>>> effort >>>> that he would support >>>> >>>> 3) Just when people say that they don't want sub-projects, they turn >>>> around >>>> and suggest activities and plans that look like sub-projects. >>>> They just want to invent a new structure outside Apache to do this. >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> >>>> On 28/11/2014 4:29 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Adrian and everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I think this issue was discussed in multiple threads before. There seems >>>>> to >>>>> be a general agreement that resources are low. The question is then why >>>>> sub-projects or forks or spinoffs? Why not just keep specialpurpose in >>>>> the >>>>> project? It's live functioning code even if not updated and it is after >>>>> all >>>>> secondary to the core applications. If anyone then wants to contribute >>>>> they >>>>> would be supervised by experts. >>>>> >>>>> IMHO whatever you choose whether sub-projects or forks would probably >>>>> just >>>>> kill those components. >>>>> >>>>> My 2 cents >>>>> >>>>> Taher Alkhateeb >>>>> On Nov 29, 2014 12:15 AM, "Adrian Crum" >>>>> <[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This conversation has stopped making any sense. >>>>>> The special purpose components are removed from releases because we >>>>>> don't >>>>>> have enough resources to maintain them. Now there is interest in >>>>>> putting >>>>>> them back, but we STILL don't have the resources to maintain them. A >>>>>> suggestion was made to make them sub-projects, but that requires MORE >>>>>> resources. So the suggestion was made to spin them off to separate >>>>>> projects >>>>>> where they can stand or fall on their own. The sub-project idea (as far >>>>>> as >>>>>> I can tell) is dead. >>>>>> >>>>>> What part of that aren't you understanding? >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/28/2014 7:37 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28/11/2014 11:23 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>> I agree with Jacopo that OFBiz sub-projects will be nearly impossible >>>>>>>> to maintain. That is why I suggested moving special purpose >>>>>>>> components >>>>>>>> to separate projects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am willing to move one component to a separate project as a trial >>>>>>>> run. I have no interest in being a "chair of a sub-PMC." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who would you be willing to have as leader and chief architect? >>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/28/2014 4:12 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can someone on the PMC or a current committer find out what has to >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> done to set up an Apacahe sub-project in terms of administration >>>>>>>>> (might >>>>>>>>> be nothing) and fixing the SCM access so that committers to the >>>>>>>>> sub-project are not required to be committers to the core and >>>>>>>>> framework. >>>>>>>>> This may not be possible from a technical sense but at least it >>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>> be possible to organize the SCM so it is clear what sub-project >>>>>>>>> committers are supposed to do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If Adrian is willing to act as Chair of the sub-PMC, that would be a >>>>>>>>> great start. >>>>>>>>> I will join on the documentation side to help set up the sub-project >>>>>>>>> doc >>>>>>>>> structure. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27/11/2014 10:31 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would be willing to spin off Asset Maintenance to a separate >>>>>>>>>> project. I was thinking it could be a good test-run of the concept. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2014 2:16 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo, >>>>>>>>>>> I looked a bit back. Even if it's not clearly related I trace this >>>>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>>>> to the slim-down effort. We can forget it since nobody never >>>>>>>>>>> complained >>>>>>>>>>> (pfew...). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then you proposed to move some component from specialpurpose to >>>>>>>>>>> extras. >>>>>>>>>>> As you said, not every people were happy with it (at least Pierre >>>>>>>>>>> and in >>>>>>>>>>> a less measure I) >>>>>>>>>>> I then suggested some components to keep >>>>>>>>>>> markmail.org/message/4camcprzximkcftc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <<assetmaint >>>>>>>>>>> ecommerce >>>>>>>>>>> example* >>>>>>>>>>> pos >>>>>>>>>>> maybe myportal? >>>>>>>>>>> projectmgr >>>>>>>>>>> scrum >>>>>>>>>>> and maybe webpos?>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In a very recent thread http://markmail.org/message/ >>>>>>>>>>> ctusiepnuciofc32 >>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> suggested to associate people with components >>>>>>>>>>> <<project manager (Pierre Smits?) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> scrum (Hans?) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> examples and ext (at least me) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> myportal (French people use portals, not sure for >>>>>>>>>>> myportal?) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When I look now at my 1st list, obviously I can also support >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> POS >>>>>>>>>>> even if I have less interest in it now. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pierre at http://markmail.org/message/n23oyye2i24kqzpg suggested >>>>>>>>>>> HHFacility, ASSETMAINT, CMSSITE, PROJECTMGR, MYPORTAL, SCRUM, etc. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't like the etc. ;) but I can agree to add >>>>>>>>>>> HHFacility and CMSSITE to my list >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also in this list birt is missing, clearly at least Chatree has an >>>>>>>>>>> interest in it and knows how to maintain it. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if Anil or/and Adrian have still an interest in >>>>>>>>>>> ASSETMAINT >>>>>>>>>>> but anyway it seems it's worth to keep it. >>>>>>>>>>> HHFacility does not need much work to maintain >>>>>>>>>>> For CMSSITE I'm unsure, but it's interesting for the online help >>>>>>>>>>> (too >>>>>>>>>>> bad BJ is no longer with us) >>>>>>>>>>> BTWcmssite/cms/APACHE_OFBIZ_HTML >>>>>>>>>>> <https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/cmssite/cms/APACHE_ >>>>>>>>>>> OFBIZ_HTML> >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> no longer working (was still in August in trunk demo) I will >>>>>>>>>>> investigate >>>>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> At http://markmail.org/message/5dbs3g3vbdfo7dlx I wrote >>>>>>>>>>> <<A moment I even thought about Attic for some unmaintained >>>>>>>>>>> components >>>>>>>>>>> (ebaystore?, googlebase?, googlecheckout?, jetty?, webpos?, ...), >>>>>>>>>>> WHO >>>>>>>>>>> cares?>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But this is not a good idea. Obviously we have some >>>>>>>>>>> responsabilities >>>>>>>>>>> with our users. >>>>>>>>>>> Now I still wonder about who is really using appserver, ebaystore, >>>>>>>>>>> googlebase, googlecheckou, oagis and jetty components... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is what I can say so far >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> HTH >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/11/2014 14:20, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It was a long discussion that was done in the public lists and I >>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>> want to rehash it (you have been part of it for sure): there were >>>>>>>>>>>> concerns >>>>>>>>>>>> and discussions about duplicated jars, poor quality code, stale >>>>>>>>>>>> code, >>>>>>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>>>>>> with questionable licenses etc... on the other side there were >>>>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>>>> worried about removing features from the system etc... >>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be better to address each component individually >>>>>>>>>>>> and, >>>>>>>>>>>> since you would like to "cope with missing specialpurpose >>>>>>>>>>>> components in >>>>>>>>>>>> released packages", this is why I am asking you what are the >>>>>>>>>>>> components >>>>>>>>>>>> that should be included in the trunk/release branch/releases. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to be sure of what we are doing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1st question, is why in the 1st place we did that? What pushed >>>>>>>>>>>>> us >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> do so? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 14/11/2014 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What is your preference? Would you like to see them all in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> packages? Some of them only? Which ones? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the easiest part, I was more thinking about how >>>>>>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> downloaded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by users. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway this was just an idea to help user to cope with missing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose components in released packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now a question comes to my mind, I don't clearly remember the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to remove them. Why keeping them in the releases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in released packages is not clear to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Jacopo kind of answered at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w3xw6lipifdeks3z >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually we need to clarify 1st which components to keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches. For now it seems only ecommerce which is for me too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then discuss about why not doing the same in released >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> packages >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (sorry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if I missed some arguments here). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For that we need first to exactly know which components affect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe at this stage we don't want to send any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Attic, but this might be discussed also. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 22:51, Pierre Smits a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not difficult to assess. Do a download from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many Mb's are transferred. Do a ./ant clean-all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subsequently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hidden files in .svn folders. Finally do a zip of the cleaned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> download >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the original amount of Mb's with the size of the zip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference is what is saved on storage and transfer cost of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now multiply that with the number of branches you had in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 13 nov. 2014 om 22:32 heeft Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> het volgende geschreven: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 21:25, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it Apache's concern that while people may be free to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server capacity is not free nor unlimited? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that OFBiz really puts a big load on the ASF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users are not supposed to be downloading from the SVN. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are supposed to get downloads from local mirrors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said it :) At the moment I don't fear any overload >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the svn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from users downloading from releases branches instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz is not Tomcat ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I must say I have no measures, so you got a point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until-we/if-we-can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discover that. Because users can already do that, I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fair to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this method as long as it's reasonable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, having that suggested in a TLP project could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viewed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse from the Board, but let's be pragmatic, numbers should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth (if can get them) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may be the practical side of Apache's urging to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following their guidelines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes for Tomcat, HTTPD or such that's understandable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBiz I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "fear" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not a problem. Can we discuss with the board in case, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiding behind unknown numbers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/11/2014 3:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 20:03, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this solve ASF's issue about having users access >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> servers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't try to solve an issue, just to propose an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free user choice, but with more elements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you put on the mirrors and how do you stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessing the development SVN which is ASF's concern? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things stay as they are, it's only that we inform our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way is possible and we give them enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice, it's called freedom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/11/2014 1:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the licence free issues (an other related stuff) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disclaimer in the wiki page where all alternatives would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 13/11/2014 12:38, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the past the ASF Board asked to the OFBiz PMC to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy of the project by providing officially voted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thru >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ASF mirrors: at that time we were pushing the users >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Officially asking the user to use a release branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk but would bring back similar concerns: an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> official >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to publish a product to the outside of the project in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarantee >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> License free issues etc... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a recent user ML threadhttp://markmail.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message/ivjocjr2ull7lwqe I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested we could propose our users to use a release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than downloaded packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that we could expose this way of doing in our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> download >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> page, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better with a link to an explaining page (in details) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wiki. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know it's not the recommended way of doing at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the OFBiz differences when compared with other TLPs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly libs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and even mostly jars. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of us are actually using this way in their custom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a feeling it would not only help our users but also us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: [hidden email] skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 |
Re: Move The Asset Maintenance Component To A Separate Project (was: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?)
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-3
Hi Adrian,
Sounds like a good plan to me. I think there should probably be some sort of a delay in step #5 and it should ultimately be decided by a PMC vote at that point in time as well. I totally support the concept though. Regards Scott On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Adrian Crum < [hidden email]> wrote: > As has been discussed in this thread, we can spin off special purpose > components to their own projects - where they can form their own > communities and support structure. > > I am willing to use the Asset Maintenance component as a trial run. Here > are some of my initial thoughts, comments are welcome: > > 1. Check with the ASF legal department before doing anything. > 2. Create a project on a popular hosting site (like SourceForge, but it > could be anywhere). > 3. Set up initial committers. > 4. Notify the OFBiz mailing lists about the new project. > 5. Drop the Asset Maintenance component from the ASF repo. > > The component would maintain the ASL 2 license. Support for various > versions of OFBiz will be decided by the Asset Maintenance community. > > If the spin-off is a success, then all is good. If it fails, then the > Asset Maintenance component is added back to the ASF repo. > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > > On 11/28/2014 4:01 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: > >> The components not supported as part of the core and framework would not >> leave Apache. >> They become separate sub-projects under OFBiz so that they stay in the >> community but are released and supported separately so that there is >> more transparency about their state. >> The release of new core and framework versions gets easier. >> >> The implied warranties get clearer and the sub-communities supporting >> each of the non-core components are : >> -easier to identify >> - free to set their own roadmaps based on the needs and the resources >> - easier to join since you only need to learn a small set of code in >> order to contribute >> - do not affect the core and framework code, roadmap or release plans >> except when they request extensions to the core or framework through >> JIRA issues. >> >> The core and framework team will not have to worry about the side >> components unless they belong to the sub-project and can release with a >> full warranty. >> >> Ron >> >> >> On 28/11/2014 10:30 AM, gil portenseigne wrote: >> >>> First I might be a bit confuse in this email, sorry for that, quite >>> ideas came up while writing it, some organization missing. >>> >>> Le 28/11/2014 14:31, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>> >>>> What is the downside if the non-core components are released on their >>>> own with a clear set of documentation that describes the state of the >>>> component? >>>> >>> I guess there is none at first glance, it's quite the same idea : >>> - A big release with core components active, and non-core component >>> unactive (with included documentations) >>> A monolythique one, all-included... >>> >>> - A Core release, first with then optional non-core component releases >>> with their own documentations >>> A core with packages. Less heavy but more actions... not a problem >>> >>> The things that make me wonder, and that's we try to achieve for >>> several years with an extension management tool, are all the deviance >>> possible without the control of such an Apache project. >>> >>> It is Out of Apache ! The component community can build their own >>> component at the speed they need (often dependant on a personal >>> project), without the quality control. It's good for this side >>> community, we are already doing that in our way. But can lead to a >>> branch component, which can't be contributed anymore to OFBiz if >>> needed (for any reasons I guess). >>> >>> Why not stick with Apache OFBiz in contributing more, into >>> desactivated non-core component using the side community advancement, >>> and managing to level up these non-core quality too make them stable >>> and reliable into Apache OFBiz. >>> >>> Specifics devs that can't be contributed into OFBiz, will remain as >>> extension into the side community. >>> >>> If side community meets some deviance in his evolution, not following >>> Apache OFBiz way, it must not have consequences like removing these >>> non-core component from trunk or branches. >>> >>> That's why i like the idea to have in Apache OFBiz, release with >>> unactive components (which can always be used and follow the Ofbiz >>> way), and then everyone have the opportunity to offer other community >>> components to replace unactive one, or to add to the core. >>> >>> Then some questions remains : >>> - How can user be informed of such side communities from the OFBiz >>> official site ? Is that possible ? >>> - We tried to introduce a new tool to manage extension (which could be >>> a solution for the first question, becoming a tool of indexation ) to >>> serve this kind of purpose, but their wasn't much reactions to it. Cf >>> : http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/goxbqcgurpoy2yfp?q=ofbiz-fr >>> >>> >>> Gil >>> >>> >>>> My feeling is that it is better to release a clean core and framework >>>> where ALL component are "warranteed" by the team to be tested and >>>> supported. >>>> Components that are not part of the core would be released on their >>>> own with the warranty and support specified on an individual basis. >>>> >>>> At least the user community would know where it stands if it depends >>>> a non-core component to run their business. >>>> >>>> I think this is preferable than releasing a big conglomeration of >>>> working and non-working software that the user has to sort through to >>>> figure out if they can make a usable OFBiz. >>>> >>>> It also simplifies the release process for the core and framework. >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> On 28/11/2014 7:18 AM, gil portenseigne wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all ! >>>>> >>>>> I followed the discussion, a bit late : >>>>> >>>>> Le 28/11/2014 11:24, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> Afterthought: we agreed about having the same setting in both the >>>>>> releases branches and the trunk. So if we disable a component in >>>>>> the releases branches it will be also in the trunk. >>>>>> Then, even we enable tests, we will not be aware of UI related >>>>>> issues and globally all those which are no covered by tests. Apart >>>>>> if an users enable the component and report issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> This might be a compromise, but we need our users to be aware of. >>>>>> So they will need to be warned in the download page IMO. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's a good compromise, warning is needed to ensure that >>>>> user is aware or possible disfunctionment within these components. >>>>> No tricks needed anymore to import components from trunk. Good >>>>> enough for me. >>>>> >>>>> My opinion is that OOTB functionnalities are usable but rarely >>>>> sufficient for End-User, advanced skills are needed in each project >>>>> to make OFBiz fit the needs. So i guess there is no harm to let >>>>> inactive (uncomplete or so) component at disposal for user who might >>>>> need them. >>>>> >>>>>> Also if you remember this thread started with my idea of creating a >>>>>> wiki page to explain to our users the alternative strategy of using >>>>>> release branches rather than released packages. >>>>>> I'd like to have a direct link to this wiki page from the download >>>>>> page. This link name could be simply "alternative strategy". What >>>>>> do you think? >>>>>> >>>>> Using the same method, i like the idea. >>>>> >>>>> Gil >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I will stop this thread here and will create a new thread to >>>>>> discuss the modality of putting back the specialpurpose components >>>>>> in the R13.07 branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 27/11/2014 23:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> That sounds like a good enough solution to me >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 27/11/2014 19:41, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a good point. We could find a way to programmatically >>>>>>>> enable/disable the components just for the test run: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ./ant -Denable-all=true clean-all load-demo run-tests >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but this is just an idea; we could figure out the best way to go. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Adrian Crum >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Be aware that disabling a component does two things: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Speeds up unit tests because the disabled component is >>>>>>>>> excluded from them. >>>>>>>>> 2. Increases the chance of regressions because the disabled >>>>>>>>> component is not being tested. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2014 5:41 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Jacques Le Roux >>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, so we need to define which are those components. So 3 >>>>>>>>>>> points, which should be discussed separately it seems, not >>>>>>>>>>> sure of the order yet but probably this one >>>>>>>>>>> 1) Components to move to Attic. They will be freezed but still >>>>>>>>>>> available in this state in Attic (in other words slowly dying) >>>>>>>>>>> 2) Components to disable. They will be maintained, but OOTB >>>>>>>>>>> will not interfere with other components (applications or >>>>>>>>>>> other specialpurpose) >>>>>>>>>>> 3) Components to keep enabled. They must be maintained and >>>>>>>>>>> have no interactions with other components >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Components enabled and disabled must be maintained in the same >>>>>>>>>> way: it is not that a group is more important than the other. >>>>>>>>>> Also, disabling a component doesn't mean that it will not go in >>>>>>>>>> a release: we could have disabled components in releases and >>>>>>>>>> enabled components excluded from a release or vice versa. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For the point 2 we need to clarify if it could applies to >>>>>>>>>>> trunk also. I'd now tend to avoid differences between trunk >>>>>>>>>>> and branch releases, at the functionality or other levels. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I agree that the same settings should be maintained in the >>>>>>>>>> trunk and in the release branches. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> |
Re: Move The Asset Maintenance Component To A Separate Project
|
|
Don't forget to get ICLAs and Corporate CLAs for the new site for each
contributor otherwise you will have trouble if you want to submit it to Apache OFBiz in the future. I guess that if you offer it under an Apache license without having an ICLA /CCLA in place, you would be personally liable for any claim by contributors in the future. Not sure that you can/should force any existing users to move to the new project. Perhaps no one is using it so #5 is not a problem but I am not sure how you can reach all of the people who have downloaded it. Ron On 28/11/2014 7:54 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > Sounds like a good plan to me. I think there should probably be some sort > of a delay in step #5 and it should ultimately be decided by a PMC vote at > that point in time as well. I totally support the concept though. > > Regards > Scott > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Adrian Crum < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> As has been discussed in this thread, we can spin off special purpose >> components to their own projects - where they can form their own >> communities and support structure. >> >> I am willing to use the Asset Maintenance component as a trial run. Here >> are some of my initial thoughts, comments are welcome: >> >> 1. Check with the ASF legal department before doing anything. >> 2. Create a project on a popular hosting site (like SourceForge, but it >> could be anywhere). >> 3. Set up initial committers. >> 4. Notify the OFBiz mailing lists about the new project. >> 5. Drop the Asset Maintenance component from the ASF repo. >> >> The component would maintain the ASL 2 license. Support for various >> versions of OFBiz will be decided by the Asset Maintenance community. >> >> If the spin-off is a success, then all is good. If it fails, then the >> Asset Maintenance component is added back to the ASF repo. >> >> Adrian Crum >> Sandglass Software >> www.sandglass-software.com >> >> On 11/28/2014 4:01 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >> >>> The components not supported as part of the core and framework would not >>> leave Apache. >>> They become separate sub-projects under OFBiz so that they stay in the >>> community but are released and supported separately so that there is >>> more transparency about their state. >>> The release of new core and framework versions gets easier. >>> >>> The implied warranties get clearer and the sub-communities supporting >>> each of the non-core components are : >>> -easier to identify >>> - free to set their own roadmaps based on the needs and the resources >>> - easier to join since you only need to learn a small set of code in >>> order to contribute >>> - do not affect the core and framework code, roadmap or release plans >>> except when they request extensions to the core or framework through >>> JIRA issues. >>> >>> The core and framework team will not have to worry about the side >>> components unless they belong to the sub-project and can release with a >>> full warranty. >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>> On 28/11/2014 10:30 AM, gil portenseigne wrote: >>> >>>> First I might be a bit confuse in this email, sorry for that, quite >>>> ideas came up while writing it, some organization missing. >>>> >>>> Le 28/11/2014 14:31, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>> >>>>> What is the downside if the non-core components are released on their >>>>> own with a clear set of documentation that describes the state of the >>>>> component? >>>>> >>>> I guess there is none at first glance, it's quite the same idea : >>>> - A big release with core components active, and non-core component >>>> unactive (with included documentations) >>>> A monolythique one, all-included... >>>> >>>> - A Core release, first with then optional non-core component releases >>>> with their own documentations >>>> A core with packages. Less heavy but more actions... not a problem >>>> >>>> The things that make me wonder, and that's we try to achieve for >>>> several years with an extension management tool, are all the deviance >>>> possible without the control of such an Apache project. >>>> >>>> It is Out of Apache ! The component community can build their own >>>> component at the speed they need (often dependant on a personal >>>> project), without the quality control. It's good for this side >>>> community, we are already doing that in our way. But can lead to a >>>> branch component, which can't be contributed anymore to OFBiz if >>>> needed (for any reasons I guess). >>>> >>>> Why not stick with Apache OFBiz in contributing more, into >>>> desactivated non-core component using the side community advancement, >>>> and managing to level up these non-core quality too make them stable >>>> and reliable into Apache OFBiz. >>>> >>>> Specifics devs that can't be contributed into OFBiz, will remain as >>>> extension into the side community. >>>> >>>> If side community meets some deviance in his evolution, not following >>>> Apache OFBiz way, it must not have consequences like removing these >>>> non-core component from trunk or branches. >>>> >>>> That's why i like the idea to have in Apache OFBiz, release with >>>> unactive components (which can always be used and follow the Ofbiz >>>> way), and then everyone have the opportunity to offer other community >>>> components to replace unactive one, or to add to the core. >>>> >>>> Then some questions remains : >>>> - How can user be informed of such side communities from the OFBiz >>>> official site ? Is that possible ? >>>> - We tried to introduce a new tool to manage extension (which could be >>>> a solution for the first question, becoming a tool of indexation ) to >>>> serve this kind of purpose, but their wasn't much reactions to it. Cf >>>> : http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/goxbqcgurpoy2yfp?q=ofbiz-fr >>>> >>>> >>>> Gil >>>> >>>> >>>>> My feeling is that it is better to release a clean core and framework >>>>> where ALL component are "warranteed" by the team to be tested and >>>>> supported. >>>>> Components that are not part of the core would be released on their >>>>> own with the warranty and support specified on an individual basis. >>>>> >>>>> At least the user community would know where it stands if it depends >>>>> a non-core component to run their business. >>>>> >>>>> I think this is preferable than releasing a big conglomeration of >>>>> working and non-working software that the user has to sort through to >>>>> figure out if they can make a usable OFBiz. >>>>> >>>>> It also simplifies the release process for the core and framework. >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> On 28/11/2014 7:18 AM, gil portenseigne wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello all ! >>>>>> >>>>>> I followed the discussion, a bit late : >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 28/11/2014 11:24, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Afterthought: we agreed about having the same setting in both the >>>>>>> releases branches and the trunk. So if we disable a component in >>>>>>> the releases branches it will be also in the trunk. >>>>>>> Then, even we enable tests, we will not be aware of UI related >>>>>>> issues and globally all those which are no covered by tests. Apart >>>>>>> if an users enable the component and report issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This might be a compromise, but we need our users to be aware of. >>>>>>> So they will need to be warned in the download page IMO. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it's a good compromise, warning is needed to ensure that >>>>>> user is aware or possible disfunctionment within these components. >>>>>> No tricks needed anymore to import components from trunk. Good >>>>>> enough for me. >>>>>> >>>>>> My opinion is that OOTB functionnalities are usable but rarely >>>>>> sufficient for End-User, advanced skills are needed in each project >>>>>> to make OFBiz fit the needs. So i guess there is no harm to let >>>>>> inactive (uncomplete or so) component at disposal for user who might >>>>>> need them. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Also if you remember this thread started with my idea of creating a >>>>>>> wiki page to explain to our users the alternative strategy of using >>>>>>> release branches rather than released packages. >>>>>>> I'd like to have a direct link to this wiki page from the download >>>>>>> page. This link name could be simply "alternative strategy". What >>>>>>> do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Using the same method, i like the idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gil >>>>>> >>>>>>> I will stop this thread here and will create a new thread to >>>>>>> discuss the modality of putting back the specialpurpose components >>>>>>> in the R13.07 branch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 27/11/2014 23:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That sounds like a good enough solution to me >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 27/11/2014 19:41, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a good point. We could find a way to programmatically >>>>>>>>> enable/disable the components just for the test run: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ./ant -Denable-all=true clean-all load-demo run-tests >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but this is just an idea; we could figure out the best way to go. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Be aware that disabling a component does two things: >>>>>>>>>> 1. Speeds up unit tests because the disabled component is >>>>>>>>>> excluded from them. >>>>>>>>>> 2. Increases the chance of regressions because the disabled >>>>>>>>>> component is not being tested. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2014 5:41 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Jacques Le Roux >>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, so we need to define which are those components. So 3 >>>>>>>>>>>> points, which should be discussed separately it seems, not >>>>>>>>>>>> sure of the order yet but probably this one >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Components to move to Attic. They will be freezed but still >>>>>>>>>>>> available in this state in Attic (in other words slowly dying) >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Components to disable. They will be maintained, but OOTB >>>>>>>>>>>> will not interfere with other components (applications or >>>>>>>>>>>> other specialpurpose) >>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Components to keep enabled. They must be maintained and >>>>>>>>>>>> have no interactions with other components >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Components enabled and disabled must be maintained in the same >>>>>>>>>>> way: it is not that a group is more important than the other. >>>>>>>>>>> Also, disabling a component doesn't mean that it will not go in >>>>>>>>>>> a release: we could have disabled components in releases and >>>>>>>>>>> enabled components excluded from a release or vice versa. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For the point 2 we need to clarify if it could applies to >>>>>>>>>>>> trunk also. I'd now tend to avoid differences between trunk >>>>>>>>>>>> and branch releases, at the functionality or other levels. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the same settings should be maintained in the >>>>>>>>>>> trunk and in the release branches. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: [hidden email] skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 |
Re: Move The Asset Maintenance Component To A Separate Project
|
|
OFBiz itself went through that on a much larger scale when joining the ASF.
It took some time but it wasn't a big deal. No users are forced to do anything other than make a choice: stick with what you have or change to what is now available. Open source users make these types of decisions on a regular basis. Regards Scott On 29 Nov 2014 14:51, "Ron Wheeler" <[hidden email]> wrote: > Don't forget to get ICLAs and Corporate CLAs for the new site for each > contributor otherwise you will have trouble if you want to submit it to > Apache OFBiz in the future. > I guess that if you offer it under an Apache license without having an > ICLA /CCLA in place, you would be personally liable for any claim by > contributors in the future. > > Not sure that you can/should force any existing users to move to the new > project. > Perhaps no one is using it so #5 is not a problem but I am not sure how > you can reach all of the people who have downloaded it. > > Ron > > On 28/11/2014 7:54 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> Hi Adrian, >> >> Sounds like a good plan to me. I think there should probably be some sort >> of a delay in step #5 and it should ultimately be decided by a PMC vote at >> that point in time as well. I totally support the concept though. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Adrian Crum < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> As has been discussed in this thread, we can spin off special purpose >>> components to their own projects - where they can form their own >>> communities and support structure. >>> >>> I am willing to use the Asset Maintenance component as a trial run. Here >>> are some of my initial thoughts, comments are welcome: >>> >>> 1. Check with the ASF legal department before doing anything. >>> 2. Create a project on a popular hosting site (like SourceForge, but it >>> could be anywhere). >>> 3. Set up initial committers. >>> 4. Notify the OFBiz mailing lists about the new project. >>> 5. Drop the Asset Maintenance component from the ASF repo. >>> >>> The component would maintain the ASL 2 license. Support for various >>> versions of OFBiz will be decided by the Asset Maintenance community. >>> >>> If the spin-off is a success, then all is good. If it fails, then the >>> Asset Maintenance component is added back to the ASF repo. >>> >>> Adrian Crum >>> Sandglass Software >>> www.sandglass-software.com >>> >>> On 11/28/2014 4:01 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>> >>> The components not supported as part of the core and framework would not >>>> leave Apache. >>>> They become separate sub-projects under OFBiz so that they stay in the >>>> community but are released and supported separately so that there is >>>> more transparency about their state. >>>> The release of new core and framework versions gets easier. >>>> >>>> The implied warranties get clearer and the sub-communities supporting >>>> each of the non-core components are : >>>> -easier to identify >>>> - free to set their own roadmaps based on the needs and the resources >>>> - easier to join since you only need to learn a small set of code in >>>> order to contribute >>>> - do not affect the core and framework code, roadmap or release plans >>>> except when they request extensions to the core or framework through >>>> JIRA issues. >>>> >>>> The core and framework team will not have to worry about the side >>>> components unless they belong to the sub-project and can release with a >>>> full warranty. >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> >>>> On 28/11/2014 10:30 AM, gil portenseigne wrote: >>>> >>>> First I might be a bit confuse in this email, sorry for that, quite >>>>> ideas came up while writing it, some organization missing. >>>>> >>>>> Le 28/11/2014 14:31, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> What is the downside if the non-core components are released on their >>>>>> own with a clear set of documentation that describes the state of the >>>>>> component? >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess there is none at first glance, it's quite the same idea : >>>>> - A big release with core components active, and non-core component >>>>> unactive (with included documentations) >>>>> A monolythique one, all-included... >>>>> >>>>> - A Core release, first with then optional non-core component releases >>>>> with their own documentations >>>>> A core with packages. Less heavy but more actions... not a problem >>>>> >>>>> The things that make me wonder, and that's we try to achieve for >>>>> several years with an extension management tool, are all the deviance >>>>> possible without the control of such an Apache project. >>>>> >>>>> It is Out of Apache ! The component community can build their own >>>>> component at the speed they need (often dependant on a personal >>>>> project), without the quality control. It's good for this side >>>>> community, we are already doing that in our way. But can lead to a >>>>> branch component, which can't be contributed anymore to OFBiz if >>>>> needed (for any reasons I guess). >>>>> >>>>> Why not stick with Apache OFBiz in contributing more, into >>>>> desactivated non-core component using the side community advancement, >>>>> and managing to level up these non-core quality too make them stable >>>>> and reliable into Apache OFBiz. >>>>> >>>>> Specifics devs that can't be contributed into OFBiz, will remain as >>>>> extension into the side community. >>>>> >>>>> If side community meets some deviance in his evolution, not following >>>>> Apache OFBiz way, it must not have consequences like removing these >>>>> non-core component from trunk or branches. >>>>> >>>>> That's why i like the idea to have in Apache OFBiz, release with >>>>> unactive components (which can always be used and follow the Ofbiz >>>>> way), and then everyone have the opportunity to offer other community >>>>> components to replace unactive one, or to add to the core. >>>>> >>>>> Then some questions remains : >>>>> - How can user be informed of such side communities from the OFBiz >>>>> official site ? Is that possible ? >>>>> - We tried to introduce a new tool to manage extension (which could be >>>>> a solution for the first question, becoming a tool of indexation ) to >>>>> serve this kind of purpose, but their wasn't much reactions to it. Cf >>>>> : http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/goxbqcgurpoy2yfp?q=ofbiz-fr >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gil >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My feeling is that it is better to release a clean core and framework >>>>>> where ALL component are "warranteed" by the team to be tested and >>>>>> supported. >>>>>> Components that are not part of the core would be released on their >>>>>> own with the warranty and support specified on an individual basis. >>>>>> >>>>>> At least the user community would know where it stands if it depends >>>>>> a non-core component to run their business. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is preferable than releasing a big conglomeration of >>>>>> working and non-working software that the user has to sort through to >>>>>> figure out if they can make a usable OFBiz. >>>>>> >>>>>> It also simplifies the release process for the core and framework. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28/11/2014 7:18 AM, gil portenseigne wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello all ! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I followed the discussion, a bit late : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 28/11/2014 11:24, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Afterthought: we agreed about having the same setting in both the >>>>>>>> releases branches and the trunk. So if we disable a component in >>>>>>>> the releases branches it will be also in the trunk. >>>>>>>> Then, even we enable tests, we will not be aware of UI related >>>>>>>> issues and globally all those which are no covered by tests. Apart >>>>>>>> if an users enable the component and report issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This might be a compromise, but we need our users to be aware of. >>>>>>>> So they will need to be warned in the download page IMO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it's a good compromise, warning is needed to ensure that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> user is aware or possible disfunctionment within these components. >>>>>>> No tricks needed anymore to import components from trunk. Good >>>>>>> enough for me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My opinion is that OOTB functionnalities are usable but rarely >>>>>>> sufficient for End-User, advanced skills are needed in each project >>>>>>> to make OFBiz fit the needs. So i guess there is no harm to let >>>>>>> inactive (uncomplete or so) component at disposal for user who might >>>>>>> need them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also if you remember this thread started with my idea of creating a >>>>>>>> wiki page to explain to our users the alternative strategy of using >>>>>>>> release branches rather than released packages. >>>>>>>> I'd like to have a direct link to this wiki page from the download >>>>>>>> page. This link name could be simply "alternative strategy". What >>>>>>>> do you think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Using the same method, i like the idea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will stop this thread here and will create a new thread to >>>>>>>> discuss the modality of putting back the specialpurpose components >>>>>>>> in the R13.07 branch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 27/11/2014 23:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That sounds like a good enough solution to me >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 27/11/2014 19:41, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a good point. We could find a way to programmatically >>>>>>>>>> enable/disable the components just for the test run: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ./ant -Denable-all=true clean-all load-demo run-tests >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but this is just an idea; we could figure out the best way to go. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Be aware that disabling a component does two things: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Speeds up unit tests because the disabled component is >>>>>>>>>>> excluded from them. >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Increases the chance of regressions because the disabled >>>>>>>>>>> component is not being tested. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2014 5:41 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Jacques Le Roux >>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, so we need to define which are those components. So 3 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> points, which should be discussed separately it seems, not >>>>>>>>>>>>> sure of the order yet but probably this one >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Components to move to Attic. They will be freezed but still >>>>>>>>>>>>> available in this state in Attic (in other words slowly dying) >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Components to disable. They will be maintained, but OOTB >>>>>>>>>>>>> will not interfere with other components (applications or >>>>>>>>>>>>> other specialpurpose) >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Components to keep enabled. They must be maintained and >>>>>>>>>>>>> have no interactions with other components >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Components enabled and disabled must be maintained in the same >>>>>>>>>>>> way: it is not that a group is more important than the other. >>>>>>>>>>>> Also, disabling a component doesn't mean that it will not go in >>>>>>>>>>>> a release: we could have disabled components in releases and >>>>>>>>>>>> enabled components excluded from a release or vice versa. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For the point 2 we need to clarify if it could applies to >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk also. I'd now tend to avoid differences between trunk >>>>>>>>>>>>> and branch releases, at the functionality or other levels. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the same settings should be maintained in the >>>>>>>>>>>> trunk and in the release branches. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> > > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: [hidden email] > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > > |
Re: Move The Asset Maintenance Component To A Separate Project
|
|
On 28/11/2014 9:38 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
> OFBiz itself went through that on a much larger scale when joining the ASF. > It took some time but it wasn't a big deal. > > No users are forced to do anything other than make a choice: stick with > what you have or change to what is now available. Open source users make > these types of decisions on a regular basis. Your statement is generally are correct but in this context, it related to the suggestion about (#5) deleting Asset Management from OFBiz. > Regards > Scott > On 29 Nov 2014 14:51, "Ron Wheeler" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Don't forget to get ICLAs and Corporate CLAs for the new site for each >> contributor otherwise you will have trouble if you want to submit it to >> Apache OFBiz in the future. >> I guess that if you offer it under an Apache license without having an >> ICLA /CCLA in place, you would be personally liable for any claim by >> contributors in the future. >> >> Not sure that you can/should force any existing users to move to the new >> project. >> Perhaps no one is using it so #5 is not a problem but I am not sure how >> you can reach all of the people who have downloaded it. >> >> Ron >> >> On 28/11/2014 7:54 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >> >>> Hi Adrian, >>> >>> Sounds like a good plan to me. I think there should probably be some sort >>> of a delay in step #5 and it should ultimately be decided by a PMC vote at >>> that point in time as well. I totally support the concept though. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Adrian Crum < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> As has been discussed in this thread, we can spin off special purpose >>>> components to their own projects - where they can form their own >>>> communities and support structure. >>>> >>>> I am willing to use the Asset Maintenance component as a trial run. Here >>>> are some of my initial thoughts, comments are welcome: >>>> >>>> 1. Check with the ASF legal department before doing anything. >>>> 2. Create a project on a popular hosting site (like SourceForge, but it >>>> could be anywhere). >>>> 3. Set up initial committers. >>>> 4. Notify the OFBiz mailing lists about the new project. >>>> 5. Drop the Asset Maintenance component from the ASF repo. >>>> >>>> The component would maintain the ASL 2 license. Support for various >>>> versions of OFBiz will be decided by the Asset Maintenance community. >>>> >>>> If the spin-off is a success, then all is good. If it fails, then the >>>> Asset Maintenance component is added back to the ASF repo. >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum >>>> Sandglass Software >>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>> >>>> On 11/28/2014 4:01 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>> >>>> The components not supported as part of the core and framework would not >>>>> leave Apache. >>>>> They become separate sub-projects under OFBiz so that they stay in the >>>>> community but are released and supported separately so that there is >>>>> more transparency about their state. >>>>> The release of new core and framework versions gets easier. >>>>> >>>>> The implied warranties get clearer and the sub-communities supporting >>>>> each of the non-core components are : >>>>> -easier to identify >>>>> - free to set their own roadmaps based on the needs and the resources >>>>> - easier to join since you only need to learn a small set of code in >>>>> order to contribute >>>>> - do not affect the core and framework code, roadmap or release plans >>>>> except when they request extensions to the core or framework through >>>>> JIRA issues. >>>>> >>>>> The core and framework team will not have to worry about the side >>>>> components unless they belong to the sub-project and can release with a >>>>> full warranty. >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 28/11/2014 10:30 AM, gil portenseigne wrote: >>>>> >>>>> First I might be a bit confuse in this email, sorry for that, quite >>>>>> ideas came up while writing it, some organization missing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 28/11/2014 14:31, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the downside if the non-core components are released on their >>>>>>> own with a clear set of documentation that describes the state of the >>>>>>> component? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess there is none at first glance, it's quite the same idea : >>>>>> - A big release with core components active, and non-core component >>>>>> unactive (with included documentations) >>>>>> A monolythique one, all-included... >>>>>> >>>>>> - A Core release, first with then optional non-core component releases >>>>>> with their own documentations >>>>>> A core with packages. Less heavy but more actions... not a problem >>>>>> >>>>>> The things that make me wonder, and that's we try to achieve for >>>>>> several years with an extension management tool, are all the deviance >>>>>> possible without the control of such an Apache project. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is Out of Apache ! The component community can build their own >>>>>> component at the speed they need (often dependant on a personal >>>>>> project), without the quality control. It's good for this side >>>>>> community, we are already doing that in our way. But can lead to a >>>>>> branch component, which can't be contributed anymore to OFBiz if >>>>>> needed (for any reasons I guess). >>>>>> >>>>>> Why not stick with Apache OFBiz in contributing more, into >>>>>> desactivated non-core component using the side community advancement, >>>>>> and managing to level up these non-core quality too make them stable >>>>>> and reliable into Apache OFBiz. >>>>>> >>>>>> Specifics devs that can't be contributed into OFBiz, will remain as >>>>>> extension into the side community. >>>>>> >>>>>> If side community meets some deviance in his evolution, not following >>>>>> Apache OFBiz way, it must not have consequences like removing these >>>>>> non-core component from trunk or branches. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's why i like the idea to have in Apache OFBiz, release with >>>>>> unactive components (which can always be used and follow the Ofbiz >>>>>> way), and then everyone have the opportunity to offer other community >>>>>> components to replace unactive one, or to add to the core. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then some questions remains : >>>>>> - How can user be informed of such side communities from the OFBiz >>>>>> official site ? Is that possible ? >>>>>> - We tried to introduce a new tool to manage extension (which could be >>>>>> a solution for the first question, becoming a tool of indexation ) to >>>>>> serve this kind of purpose, but their wasn't much reactions to it. Cf >>>>>> : http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/goxbqcgurpoy2yfp?q=ofbiz-fr >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gil >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My feeling is that it is better to release a clean core and framework >>>>>>> where ALL component are "warranteed" by the team to be tested and >>>>>>> supported. >>>>>>> Components that are not part of the core would be released on their >>>>>>> own with the warranty and support specified on an individual basis. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At least the user community would know where it stands if it depends >>>>>>> a non-core component to run their business. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this is preferable than releasing a big conglomeration of >>>>>>> working and non-working software that the user has to sort through to >>>>>>> figure out if they can make a usable OFBiz. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It also simplifies the release process for the core and framework. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28/11/2014 7:18 AM, gil portenseigne wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello all ! >>>>>>>> I followed the discussion, a bit late : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le 28/11/2014 11:24, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Afterthought: we agreed about having the same setting in both the >>>>>>>>> releases branches and the trunk. So if we disable a component in >>>>>>>>> the releases branches it will be also in the trunk. >>>>>>>>> Then, even we enable tests, we will not be aware of UI related >>>>>>>>> issues and globally all those which are no covered by tests. Apart >>>>>>>>> if an users enable the component and report issues. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This might be a compromise, but we need our users to be aware of. >>>>>>>>> So they will need to be warned in the download page IMO. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think it's a good compromise, warning is needed to ensure that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> user is aware or possible disfunctionment within these components. >>>>>>>> No tricks needed anymore to import components from trunk. Good >>>>>>>> enough for me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My opinion is that OOTB functionnalities are usable but rarely >>>>>>>> sufficient for End-User, advanced skills are needed in each project >>>>>>>> to make OFBiz fit the needs. So i guess there is no harm to let >>>>>>>> inactive (uncomplete or so) component at disposal for user who might >>>>>>>> need them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also if you remember this thread started with my idea of creating a >>>>>>>>> wiki page to explain to our users the alternative strategy of using >>>>>>>>> release branches rather than released packages. >>>>>>>>> I'd like to have a direct link to this wiki page from the download >>>>>>>>> page. This link name could be simply "alternative strategy". What >>>>>>>>> do you think? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Using the same method, i like the idea. >>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will stop this thread here and will create a new thread to >>>>>>>>> discuss the modality of putting back the specialpurpose components >>>>>>>>> in the R13.07 branch. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 27/11/2014 23:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That sounds like a good enough solution to me >>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le 27/11/2014 19:41, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is a good point. We could find a way to programmatically >>>>>>>>>>> enable/disable the components just for the test run: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ./ant -Denable-all=true clean-all load-demo run-tests >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but this is just an idea; we could figure out the best way to go. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Be aware that disabling a component does two things: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Speeds up unit tests because the disabled component is >>>>>>>>>>>> excluded from them. >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Increases the chance of regressions because the disabled >>>>>>>>>>>> component is not being tested. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2014 5:41 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Jacques Le Roux >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, so we need to define which are those components. So 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> points, which should be discussed separately it seems, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure of the order yet but probably this one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Components to move to Attic. They will be freezed but still >>>>>>>>>>>>>> available in this state in Attic (in other words slowly dying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Components to disable. They will be maintained, but OOTB >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will not interfere with other components (applications or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other specialpurpose) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Components to keep enabled. They must be maintained and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have no interactions with other components >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Components enabled and disabled must be maintained in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>> way: it is not that a group is more important than the other. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, disabling a component doesn't mean that it will not go in >>>>>>>>>>>>> a release: we could have disabled components in releases and >>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled components excluded from a release or vice versa. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For the point 2 we need to clarify if it could applies to >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk also. I'd now tend to avoid differences between trunk >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and branch releases, at the functionality or other levels. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the same settings should be maintained in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk and in the release branches. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> -- >> Ron Wheeler >> President >> Artifact Software Inc >> email: [hidden email] >> skype: ronaldmwheeler >> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >> >> -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: [hidden email] skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 |
Re: Move The Asset Maintenance Component To A Separate Project
|
|
Yeah I understood that. Deleting simply means it won't be available in
future releases. It wouldn't suddenly disappear out of pre-existing releases. Regards Scott On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Ron Wheeler <[hidden email] > wrote: > On 28/11/2014 9:38 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> OFBiz itself went through that on a much larger scale when joining the >> ASF. >> It took some time but it wasn't a big deal. >> >> No users are forced to do anything other than make a choice: stick with >> what you have or change to what is now available. Open source users make >> these types of decisions on a regular basis. >> > Your statement is generally are correct but in this context, it related to > the suggestion about (#5) deleting Asset Management from OFBiz. > > Regards >> Scott >> On 29 Nov 2014 14:51, "Ron Wheeler" <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> Don't forget to get ICLAs and Corporate CLAs for the new site for each >>> contributor otherwise you will have trouble if you want to submit it to >>> Apache OFBiz in the future. >>> I guess that if you offer it under an Apache license without having an >>> ICLA /CCLA in place, you would be personally liable for any claim by >>> contributors in the future. >>> >>> Not sure that you can/should force any existing users to move to the new >>> project. >>> Perhaps no one is using it so #5 is not a problem but I am not sure how >>> you can reach all of the people who have downloaded it. >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> On 28/11/2014 7:54 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >>> >>> Hi Adrian, >>>> >>>> Sounds like a good plan to me. I think there should probably be some >>>> sort >>>> of a delay in step #5 and it should ultimately be decided by a PMC vote >>>> at >>>> that point in time as well. I totally support the concept though. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Adrian Crum < >>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> As has been discussed in this thread, we can spin off special purpose >>>> >>>>> components to their own projects - where they can form their own >>>>> communities and support structure. >>>>> >>>>> I am willing to use the Asset Maintenance component as a trial run. >>>>> Here >>>>> are some of my initial thoughts, comments are welcome: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Check with the ASF legal department before doing anything. >>>>> 2. Create a project on a popular hosting site (like SourceForge, but it >>>>> could be anywhere). >>>>> 3. Set up initial committers. >>>>> 4. Notify the OFBiz mailing lists about the new project. >>>>> 5. Drop the Asset Maintenance component from the ASF repo. >>>>> >>>>> The component would maintain the ASL 2 license. Support for various >>>>> versions of OFBiz will be decided by the Asset Maintenance community. >>>>> >>>>> If the spin-off is a success, then all is good. If it fails, then the >>>>> Asset Maintenance component is added back to the ASF repo. >>>>> >>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>> >>>>> On 11/28/2014 4:01 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The components not supported as part of the core and framework would >>>>> not >>>>> >>>>>> leave Apache. >>>>>> They become separate sub-projects under OFBiz so that they stay in the >>>>>> community but are released and supported separately so that there is >>>>>> more transparency about their state. >>>>>> The release of new core and framework versions gets easier. >>>>>> >>>>>> The implied warranties get clearer and the sub-communities supporting >>>>>> each of the non-core components are : >>>>>> -easier to identify >>>>>> - free to set their own roadmaps based on the needs and the resources >>>>>> - easier to join since you only need to learn a small set of code in >>>>>> order to contribute >>>>>> - do not affect the core and framework code, roadmap or release plans >>>>>> except when they request extensions to the core or framework through >>>>>> JIRA issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> The core and framework team will not have to worry about the side >>>>>> components unless they belong to the sub-project and can release with >>>>>> a >>>>>> full warranty. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28/11/2014 10:30 AM, gil portenseigne wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> First I might be a bit confuse in this email, sorry for that, quite >>>>>> >>>>>>> ideas came up while writing it, some organization missing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 28/11/2014 14:31, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is the downside if the non-core components are released on >>>>>>> their >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> own with a clear set of documentation that describes the state of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> component? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I guess there is none at first glance, it's quite the same idea : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> - A big release with core components active, and non-core component >>>>>>> unactive (with included documentations) >>>>>>> A monolythique one, all-included... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - A Core release, first with then optional non-core component >>>>>>> releases >>>>>>> with their own documentations >>>>>>> A core with packages. Less heavy but more actions... not a problem >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The things that make me wonder, and that's we try to achieve for >>>>>>> several years with an extension management tool, are all the deviance >>>>>>> possible without the control of such an Apache project. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is Out of Apache ! The component community can build their own >>>>>>> component at the speed they need (often dependant on a personal >>>>>>> project), without the quality control. It's good for this side >>>>>>> community, we are already doing that in our way. But can lead to a >>>>>>> branch component, which can't be contributed anymore to OFBiz if >>>>>>> needed (for any reasons I guess). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not stick with Apache OFBiz in contributing more, into >>>>>>> desactivated non-core component using the side community advancement, >>>>>>> and managing to level up these non-core quality too make them stable >>>>>>> and reliable into Apache OFBiz. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Specifics devs that can't be contributed into OFBiz, will remain as >>>>>>> extension into the side community. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If side community meets some deviance in his evolution, not following >>>>>>> Apache OFBiz way, it must not have consequences like removing these >>>>>>> non-core component from trunk or branches. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's why i like the idea to have in Apache OFBiz, release with >>>>>>> unactive components (which can always be used and follow the Ofbiz >>>>>>> way), and then everyone have the opportunity to offer other community >>>>>>> components to replace unactive one, or to add to the core. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then some questions remains : >>>>>>> - How can user be informed of such side communities from the OFBiz >>>>>>> official site ? Is that possible ? >>>>>>> - We tried to introduce a new tool to manage extension (which could >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> a solution for the first question, becoming a tool of indexation ) to >>>>>>> serve this kind of purpose, but their wasn't much reactions to it. Cf >>>>>>> : http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/goxbqcgurpoy2yfp?q=ofbiz-fr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My feeling is that it is better to release a clean core and >>>>>>> framework >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> where ALL component are "warranteed" by the team to be tested and >>>>>>>> supported. >>>>>>>> Components that are not part of the core would be released on their >>>>>>>> own with the warranty and support specified on an individual basis. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At least the user community would know where it stands if it depends >>>>>>>> a non-core component to run their business. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think this is preferable than releasing a big conglomeration of >>>>>>>> working and non-working software that the user has to sort through >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> figure out if they can make a usable OFBiz. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It also simplifies the release process for the core and framework. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 28/11/2014 7:18 AM, gil portenseigne wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello all ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I followed the discussion, a bit late : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 28/11/2014 11:24, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Afterthought: we agreed about having the same setting in both the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> releases branches and the trunk. So if we disable a component in >>>>>>>>>> the releases branches it will be also in the trunk. >>>>>>>>>> Then, even we enable tests, we will not be aware of UI related >>>>>>>>>> issues and globally all those which are no covered by tests. Apart >>>>>>>>>> if an users enable the component and report issues. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This might be a compromise, but we need our users to be aware of. >>>>>>>>>> So they will need to be warned in the download page IMO. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think it's a good compromise, warning is needed to ensure >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> user is aware or possible disfunctionment within these >>>>>>>>> components. >>>>>>>>> No tricks needed anymore to import components from trunk. Good >>>>>>>>> enough for me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My opinion is that OOTB functionnalities are usable but rarely >>>>>>>>> sufficient for End-User, advanced skills are needed in each project >>>>>>>>> to make OFBiz fit the needs. So i guess there is no harm to let >>>>>>>>> inactive (uncomplete or so) component at disposal for user who >>>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>> need them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also if you remember this thread started with my idea of >>>>>>>>> creating a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wiki page to explain to our users the alternative strategy of >>>>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>>>> release branches rather than released packages. >>>>>>>>>> I'd like to have a direct link to this wiki page from the download >>>>>>>>>> page. This link name could be simply "alternative strategy". What >>>>>>>>>> do you think? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Using the same method, i like the idea. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I will stop this thread here and will create a new thread to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> discuss the modality of putting back the specialpurpose components >>>>>>>>>> in the R13.07 branch. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le 27/11/2014 23:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a good enough solution to me >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 27/11/2014 19:41, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is a good point. We could find a way to programmatically >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> enable/disable the components just for the test run: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ./ant -Denable-all=true clean-all load-demo run-tests >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> but this is just an idea; we could figure out the best way to >>>>>>>>>>>> go. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Be aware that disabling a component does two things: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Speeds up unit tests because the disabled component is >>>>>>>>>>>>> excluded from them. >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Increases the chance of regressions because the disabled >>>>>>>>>>>>> component is not being tested. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2014 5:41 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Jacques Le Roux >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, so we need to define which are those components. So 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> points, which should be discussed separately it seems, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure of the order yet but probably this one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Components to move to Attic. They will be freezed but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available in this state in Attic (in other words slowly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Components to disable. They will be maintained, but OOTB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will not interfere with other components (applications or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other specialpurpose) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Components to keep enabled. They must be maintained and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have no interactions with other components >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Components enabled and disabled must be maintained in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way: it is not that a group is more important than the other. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, disabling a component doesn't mean that it will not go >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release: we could have disabled components in releases and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled components excluded from a release or vice versa. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the point 2 we need to clarify if it could applies to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk also. I'd now tend to avoid differences between trunk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and branch releases, at the functionality or other levels. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the same settings should be maintained in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk and in the release branches. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>> Ron Wheeler >>> President >>> Artifact Software Inc >>> email: [hidden email] >>> skype: ronaldmwheeler >>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: [hidden email] > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > > |
Re: Move The Asset Maintenance Component To A Separate Project
|
|
On 28/11/2014 10:14 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
> Yeah I understood that. Deleting simply means it won't be available > in future releases. It wouldn't suddenly disappear out of > pre-existing releases. Got it. > > Regards > Scott > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Ron Wheeler > <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > On 28/11/2014 9:38 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > > OFBiz itself went through that on a much larger scale when > joining the ASF. > It took some time but it wasn't a big deal. > > No users are forced to do anything other than make a choice: > stick with > what you have or change to what is now available. Open source > users make > these types of decisions on a regular basis. > > Your statement is generally are correct but in this context, it > related to the suggestion about (#5) deleting Asset Management > from OFBiz. > > Regards > Scott > On 29 Nov 2014 14:51, "Ron Wheeler" > <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > Don't forget to get ICLAs and Corporate CLAs for the new > site for each > contributor otherwise you will have trouble if you want to > submit it to > Apache OFBiz in the future. > I guess that if you offer it under an Apache license > without having an > ICLA /CCLA in place, you would be personally liable for > any claim by > contributors in the future. > > Not sure that you can/should force any existing users to > move to the new > project. > Perhaps no one is using it so #5 is not a problem but I am > not sure how > you can reach all of the people who have downloaded it. > > Ron > > On 28/11/2014 7:54 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > > Hi Adrian, > > Sounds like a good plan to me. I think there should > probably be some sort > of a delay in step #5 and it should ultimately be > decided by a PMC vote at > that point in time as well. I totally support the > concept though. > > Regards > Scott > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Adrian Crum < > [hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > As has been discussed in this thread, we can spin > off special purpose > > components to their own projects - where they can > form their own > communities and support structure. > > I am willing to use the Asset Maintenance > component as a trial run. Here > are some of my initial thoughts, comments are welcome: > > 1. Check with the ASF legal department before > doing anything. > 2. Create a project on a popular hosting site > (like SourceForge, but it > could be anywhere). > 3. Set up initial committers. > 4. Notify the OFBiz mailing lists about the new > project. > 5. Drop the Asset Maintenance component from the > ASF repo. > > The component would maintain the ASL 2 license. > Support for various > versions of OFBiz will be decided by the Asset > Maintenance community. > > If the spin-off is a success, then all is good. If > it fails, then the > Asset Maintenance component is added back to the > ASF repo. > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > <http://www.sandglass-software.com> > > On 11/28/2014 4:01 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: > > The components not supported as part of the core > and framework would not > > leave Apache. > They become separate sub-projects under OFBiz > so that they stay in the > community but are released and supported > separately so that there is > more transparency about their state. > The release of new core and framework versions > gets easier. > > The implied warranties get clearer and the > sub-communities supporting > each of the non-core components are : > -easier to identify > - free to set their own roadmaps based on the > needs and the resources > - easier to join since you only need to learn > a small set of code in > order to contribute > - do not affect the core and framework code, > roadmap or release plans > except when they request extensions to the > core or framework through > JIRA issues. > > The core and framework team will not have to > worry about the side > components unless they belong to the > sub-project and can release with a > full warranty. > > Ron > > > On 28/11/2014 10:30 AM, gil portenseigne wrote: > > First I might be a bit confuse in this > email, sorry for that, quite > > ideas came up while writing it, some > organization missing. > > Le 28/11/2014 14:31, Ron Wheeler a écrit : > > What is the downside if the non-core > components are released on their > > own with a clear set of documentation > that describes the state of the > component? > > I guess there is none at first > glance, it's quite the same idea : > > - A big release with core components > active, and non-core component > unactive (with included documentations) > A monolythique one, all-included... > > - A Core release, first with then optional > non-core component releases > with their own documentations > A core with packages. Less heavy but more > actions... not a problem > > The things that make me wonder, and that's > we try to achieve for > several years with an extension management > tool, are all the deviance > possible without the control of such an > Apache project. > > It is Out of Apache ! The component > community can build their own > component at the speed they need (often > dependant on a personal > project), without the quality control. > It's good for this side > community, we are already doing that in > our way. But can lead to a > branch component, which can't be > contributed anymore to OFBiz if > needed (for any reasons I guess). > > Why not stick with Apache OFBiz in > contributing more, into > desactivated non-core component using the > side community advancement, > and managing to level up these non-core > quality too make them stable > and reliable into Apache OFBiz. > > Specifics devs that can't be contributed > into OFBiz, will remain as > extension into the side community. > > If side community meets some deviance in > his evolution, not following > Apache OFBiz way, it must not have > consequences like removing these > non-core component from trunk or branches. > > That's why i like the idea to have in > Apache OFBiz, release with > unactive components (which can always be > used and follow the Ofbiz > way), and then everyone have the > opportunity to offer other community > components to replace unactive one, or to > add to the core. > > Then some questions remains : > - How can user be informed of such side > communities from the OFBiz > official site ? Is that possible ? > - We tried to introduce a new tool to > manage extension (which could be > a solution for the first question, > becoming a tool of indexation ) to > serve this kind of purpose, but their > wasn't much reactions to it. Cf > : > http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/goxbqcgurpoy2yfp?q=ofbiz-fr > > > Gil > > > My feeling is that it is better to > release a clean core and framework > > where ALL component are "warranteed" > by the team to be tested and > supported. > Components that are not part of the > core would be released on their > own with the warranty and support > specified on an individual basis. > > At least the user community would know > where it stands if it depends > a non-core component to run their > business. > > I think this is preferable than > releasing a big conglomeration of > working and non-working software that > the user has to sort through to > figure out if they can make a usable > OFBiz. > > It also simplifies the release process > for the core and framework. > > Ron > > On 28/11/2014 7:18 AM, gil > portenseigne wrote: > > Hello all ! > > I followed the discussion, a bit > late : > > Le 28/11/2014 11:24, Jacques Le > Roux a écrit : > > Afterthought: we agreed about > having the same setting in both the > > releases branches and the > trunk. So if we disable a > component in > the releases branches it will > be also in the trunk. > Then, even we enable tests, we > will not be aware of UI related > issues and globally all those > which are no covered by tests. > Apart > if an users enable the > component and report issues. > > This might be a compromise, > but we need our users to be > aware of. > So they will need to be warned > in the download page IMO. > > I think it's a good > compromise, warning is needed > to ensure that > > user is aware or possible > disfunctionment within these > components. > No tricks needed anymore to import > components from trunk. Good > enough for me. > > My opinion is that OOTB > functionnalities are usable but rarely > sufficient for End-User, advanced > skills are needed in each project > to make OFBiz fit the needs. So i > guess there is no harm to let > inactive (uncomplete or so) > component at disposal for user who > might > need them. > > Also if you remember this thread > started with my idea of creating a > > wiki page to explain to our > users the alternative strategy > of using > release branches rather than > released packages. > I'd like to have a direct link > to this wiki page from the > download > page. This link name could be > simply "alternative strategy". > What > do you think? > > Using the same method, i > like the idea. > > Gil > > I will stop this thread here and > will create a new thread to > > discuss the modality of > putting back the > specialpurpose components > in the R13.07 branch. > > Jacques > > > Le 27/11/2014 23:38, Jacques > Le Roux a écrit : > > That sounds like a good > enough solution to me > > Jacques > > Le 27/11/2014 19:41, > Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : > > This is a good point. We > could find a way to > programmatically > > enable/disable the > components just for > the test run: > > ./ant > -Denable-all=true > clean-all load-demo > run-tests > > but this is just an > idea; we could figure > out the best way to go. > > Jacopo > > > On Nov 27, 2014, at > 7:14 PM, Adrian Crum > <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> > wrote: > > Be aware that > disabling a component > does two things: > > 1. Speeds up unit > tests because the > disabled component is > excluded from them. > 2. Increases the > chance of > regressions > because the disabled > component is not > being tested. > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > <http://www.sandglass-software.com> > > On 11/27/2014 5:41 > PM, Jacopo > Cappellato wrote: > > On Nov 27, 2014, > at 6:25 PM, > Jacques Le Roux > > <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> > wrote: > > Yes, so we > need to define > which are > those > components. So 3 > > points, > which > should be > discussed > separately > it seems, not > sure of > the order > yet but > probably > this one > 1) > Components > to move to > Attic. > They will > be freezed > but still > available > in this > state in > Attic (in > other > words > slowly dying) > 2) > Components > to > disable. > They will > be > maintained, but > OOTB > will not > interfere > with other > components > (applications > or > other > specialpurpose) > 3) > Components > to keep > enabled. > They must > be > maintained and > have no > interactions > with other > components > > > Components > enabled > and > disabled > must be > maintained > in the same > > way: it is not > that a group > is more > important than > the other. > Also, > disabling a > component > doesn't mean > that it will > not go in > a release: we > could have > disabled > components in > releases and > enabled > components > excluded from > a release or > vice versa. > > For the > point 2 we > need to > clarify if it > could applies to > > trunk > also. I'd > now tend > to avoid > differences between > trunk > and branch > releases, > at the > functionality > or other > levels. > > I agree > that the > same > settings > should be > maintained > in the > > trunk and in > the release > branches. > > Jacopo > > > > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: [hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > > > > > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: [hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > > -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: [hidden email] skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 |
Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron Wheeler
On Nov 29, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Ron Wheeler <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Can the Apache project abandon a component if someone says that they will make a private fork? Everyone can start a new open (or closed) source project forking a component from OFBiz: it doesn't require any approval or blessing from the OFBiz community. When this happens, there is not special action required from the OFBiz project on the original component: it can be kept, maintained or abandoned independently from the life of the forked component. Just to consider an example, in this thread: 1) Jacques wrote that the assetmaint component could be interesting and Adrian could be a person willing to maintain it 2) Adrian replied that he is not interested in maintaining it in its current form and that he is planning to start a new project external to the ASF Adrian's answer, in the context of this community, simply means that Adrian will not help maintaining the component in OFBiz. Now that we know this we can decide whatever we want to do on the original component: including no decision. Jacopo |
Re: Move The Asset Maintenance Component To A Separate Project (was: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?)
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-3
On Nov 28, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1. Check with the ASF legal department before doing anything. You can do step #1 without any approval from the ASF or the OFBiz project. > 2. Create a project on a popular hosting site (like SourceForge, but it could be anywhere). > 3. Set up initial committers. > 4. Notify the OFBiz mailing lists about the new project. > 5. Drop the Asset Maintenance component from the ASF repo. Just to avoid confusion, let's keep step #5 out of this plan: the decision of dropping the original component or not will be taken by the OFBiz community based on several factors (its value, if it is maintained, etc... of course knowing that there is a maintained version of it with the same license will be a relevant factor in the decision). Jacopo |
Re: Move The Asset Maintenance Component To A Separate Project
|
|
Good point, thanks!
Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 11/29/2014 5:26 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > On Nov 28, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> 1. Check with the ASF legal department before doing anything. > > You can do step #1 without any approval from the ASF or the OFBiz project. > >> 2. Create a project on a popular hosting site (like SourceForge, but it could be anywhere). >> 3. Set up initial committers. >> 4. Notify the OFBiz mailing lists about the new project. >> 5. Drop the Asset Maintenance component from the ASF repo. > > Just to avoid confusion, let's keep step #5 out of this plan: the decision of dropping the original component or not will be taken by the OFBiz community based on several factors (its value, if it is maintained, etc... of course knowing that there is a maintained version of it with the same license will be a relevant factor in the decision). > > Jacopo > |
Re: Move The Asset Maintenance Component To A Separate Project
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
Le 29/11/2014 06:26, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : > On Nov 28, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> 1. Check with the ASF legal department before doing anything. > You can do step #1 without any approval from the ASF or the OFBiz project. > >> 2. Create a project on a popular hosting site (like SourceForge, but it could be anywhere). >> 3. Set up initial committers. >> 4. Notify the OFBiz mailing lists about the new project. >> 5. Drop the Asset Maintenance component from the ASF repo. > Just to avoid confusion, let's keep step #5 out of this plan: the decision of dropping the original component or not will be taken by the OFBiz community based on several factors (its value, if it is maintained, etc... of course knowing that there is a maintained version of it with the same license will be a relevant factor in the decision). Thanks Jacopo, I wanted to say the same. Anil created this component so I guess he has still some interest in it. Jacques > > Jacopo > |
Re: Move The Asset Maintenance Component To A Separate Project
|
|
Yes, I do have interest in asset maintenance application and I like the idea and direction proposed by Adrian.
With time I will figure out ways to support this experiment. Anil Patel. > On Nov 29, 2014, at 4:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Le 29/11/2014 06:26, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >> On Nov 28, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> 1. Check with the ASF legal department before doing anything. >> You can do step #1 without any approval from the ASF or the OFBiz project. >> >>> 2. Create a project on a popular hosting site (like SourceForge, but it could be anywhere). >>> 3. Set up initial committers. >>> 4. Notify the OFBiz mailing lists about the new project. >>> 5. Drop the Asset Maintenance component from the ASF repo. >> Just to avoid confusion, let's keep step #5 out of this plan: the decision of dropping the original component or not will be taken by the OFBiz community based on several factors (its value, if it is maintained, etc... of course knowing that there is a maintained version of it with the same license will be a relevant factor in the decision). > > Thanks Jacopo, I wanted to say the same. Anil created this component so I guess he has still some interest in it. > > Jacques > >> >> Jacopo >> |
Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
While working with Jinghai on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6659 I got an idea.
We tried to remove all special purpose components but ecommerce in R13.07. We can't say it was a success, because some users complained they could not find the component they were looking for (POS or Project Manager for instance), etc. Now on the other hand we could still discuss the idea of removing those components from releases when still having them in the releases branches. How to? Easy: just remove them from the branch before releasing, release without them and them revert the removing. Hop, they are here again in the released branch and we can continue to maintain them. With a page in the wiki we explain to users how to grab the components when they need them, et voilà :) Now I'm not sure we still want to remove component from specialpurpose, but there were some good arguments about, more in the last thread I found about this subject: http://markmail.org/message/rndzn6i6z2kp2zn3 Jacques Le 28/11/2014 11:24, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : > Afterthought: we agreed about having the same setting in both the releases branches and the trunk. So if we disable a component in the releases > branches it will be also in the trunk. > Then, even we enable tests, we will not be aware of UI related issues and globally all those which are no covered by tests. Apart if an users enable > the component and report issues. > > This might be a compromise, but we need our users to be aware of. So they will need to be warned in the download page IMO. > > Also if you remember this thread started with my idea of creating a wiki page to explain to our users the alternative strategy of using release > branches rather than released packages. > I'd like to have a direct link to this wiki page from the download page. This link name could be simply "alternative strategy". What do you think? > > I will stop this thread here and will create a new thread to discuss the modality of putting back the specialpurpose components in the R13.07 branch. > > Jacques > > > Le 27/11/2014 23:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >> That sounds like a good enough solution to me >> >> Jacques >> >> Le 27/11/2014 19:41, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>> This is a good point. We could find a way to programmatically enable/disable the components just for the test run: >>> >>> ./ant -Denable-all=true clean-all load-demo run-tests >>> >>> but this is just an idea; we could figure out the best way to go. >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >>> >>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> Be aware that disabling a component does two things: >>>> >>>> 1. Speeds up unit tests because the disabled component is excluded from them. >>>> 2. Increases the chance of regressions because the disabled component is not being tested. >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum >>>> Sandglass Software >>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>> >>>> On 11/27/2014 5:41 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, so we need to define which are those components. So 3 points, which should be discussed separately it seems, not sure of the order yet but >>>>>> probably this one >>>>>> 1) Components to move to Attic. They will be freezed but still available in this state in Attic (in other words slowly dying) >>>>>> 2) Components to disable. They will be maintained, but OOTB will not interfere with other components (applications or other specialpurpose) >>>>>> 3) Components to keep enabled. They must be maintained and have no interactions with other components >>>>> Components enabled and disabled must be maintained in the same way: it is not that a group is more important than the other. >>>>> Also, disabling a component doesn't mean that it will not go in a release: we could have disabled components in releases and enabled components >>>>> excluded from a release or vice versa. >>>>> >>>>>> For the point 2 we need to clarify if it could applies to trunk also. I'd now tend to avoid differences between trunk and branch releases, at >>>>>> the functionality or other levels. >>>>> I agree that the same settings should be maintained in the trunk and in the release branches. >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>> >>> >> > |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |