Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
76 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
Hi,

In a recent user ML thread http://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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Jacopo Cappellato-4
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 thread http://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
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Pierre Smits
We are talking about components (applications) that are good and nobody
complains about. Code that is being used by our users. Code that is being
evaluated and contributors work on to improve it. And this is left out of
releases? Crazy....

If that were to be the policy, we could also start to chuck out humanres,
marketing, cmssite, parts of accounting. And the rest not mentioned...

Release branches and trunk are good for contributors to work on the code
and such (bug fixes, improvements). Using it as a source to base a
production environment upon is up to the users. It should not be the thing
this project advocates and promotes. We have a responsibility to cary out.
Not only to our users, but also the ASF.

If you want to change the way we work, start working on a proposal that
will find consensus within the community. And by forcing an implementation
methodology upon us that doesn't have the consensus of the community, that
leads to more misunderstanding (within the user part of the community) and
more work for the rest.





Pierre Smits

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

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 thread http://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
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
Jacopo, Pierre,

I did not speak about forcing users, just suggesting and explaining why. Then their choice, which is available anyway, but maybe hidden for some...

Jacques

Le 13/11/2014 13:44, Pierre Smits a écrit :

> We are talking about components (applications) that are good and nobody
> complains about. Code that is being used by our users. Code that is being
> evaluated and contributors work on to improve it. And this is left out of
> releases? Crazy....
>
> If that were to be the policy, we could also start to chuck out humanres,
> marketing, cmssite, parts of accounting. And the rest not mentioned...
>
> Release branches and trunk are good for contributors to work on the code
> and such (bug fixes, improvements). Using it as a source to base a
> production environment upon is up to the users. It should not be the thing
> this project advocates and promotes. We have a responsibility to cary out.
> Not only to our users, but also the ASF.
>
> If you want to change the way we work, start working on a proposal that
> will find consensus within the community. And by forcing an implementation
> methodology upon us that doesn't have the consensus of the community, that
> leads to more misunderstanding (within the user part of the community) and
> more work for the rest.
>
>
>
>
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 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 thread http://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
>>>
>>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Pierre Smits
In reply to this post by Pierre Smits
That last sentence should have been: And not by forcing an implementation
methodology upon us that doesn't have the consensus of the community, that
leads to more misunderstanding (within the user part of the community) and
more work for the rest.

Pierre Smits

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

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> We are talking about components (applications) that are good and nobody
> complains about. Code that is being used by our users. Code that is being
> evaluated and contributors work on to improve it. And this is left out of
> releases? Crazy....
>
> If that were to be the policy, we could also start to chuck out humanres,
> marketing, cmssite, parts of accounting. And the rest not mentioned...
>
> Release branches and trunk are good for contributors to work on the code
> and such (bug fixes, improvements). Using it as a source to base a
> production environment upon is up to the users. It should not be the thing
> this project advocates and promotes. We have a responsibility to cary out.
> Not only to our users, but also the ASF.
>
> If you want to change the way we work, start working on a proposal that
> will find consensus within the community. And by forcing an implementation
> methodology upon us that doesn't have the consensus of the community, that
> leads to more misunderstanding (within the user part of the community) and
> more work for the rest.
>
>
>
>
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 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 thread http://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
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Ron Wheeler
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
As an outsider, I can see what is bothering the ASF.

The voting out process is Apache's way of ensuring that the PMC and
contributors are putting their stamp of approval on the release.
It is the last chance to raise an objection about some bug/deficiency
before you put the warranty on the box.
By voting +1, you are saying that you are putting your professional
reputation on the quality of the release including all of code,
documentation and testing done by everyone.
This is the foundation of the reputation that Apache has built.
This is why PMC membership is based on a meritocracy.
As a PMC member, your name and reputation is tied to the votes of the
PMC in making the release.
It is publicly recorded and visible to all.
They may never see your code or great design work but they can see how
you voted.


It is not very clear what the PMC actually thinks( as a collective
group)  that it is producing.

What is the product that gets released?
The "public" needs to know what it is that the project is supporting.
It has to be easy to get that thing and do something useful with it.
The product has to be described fully on the website and wiki.

What is the warranty that comes with it?
The "public" needs to know the project's commitment to that release.
It needs to know that it has a support plan and some idea about where
this fits in the long-term roadmap(EOS and EOL).
The OFBiz team is asking a company to commit to running a business based
on this product.
They need to know what they are getting into; implementation costs,
future costs.
They need to be able to make a due diligence on the risks involved with
adopting this product.

Is the documentation sufficient, correct and well-written?
This is the starting point for any new adopter.
If the docs are shoddy, then the code is probably worse since it is
harder to code.
If you can't describe how it works, how can you code it properly.
If it is described incorrectly,  an outside person can not make it work
and has to invest in reverse engineering the docs from code.

What is the roadmap?
They need to know what the PMC has as a clear vision of where they want
the product to go over the next 5 years or even the next 2 years?
They need to be comfortable that they are making the right choice for a
key part of their business's infrastructure.

Who is actually using the product OOTB?
It is getting clear to me that none of the PMC members actually use
OFBiz as it is released.
This is a big problem.
If even the people closest to the product can't use it, how can an
outside person have any hope of success with it.


This can be fixed but it is going to take some changes in mindset within
the PMC.
What I am seeing is some really talented people who have great skills at
design and coding.
I see companies supporting the project but only interested in forking it
to make their own commercial offerings.
The PMC is having trouble with transparency partly because they are not
willing (or have not been asked) to commit to a team effort.
This makes it hard for the PMC to make statements about the future.
Even a volunteer organization has to agree on goals and agree to put
personal interest aside once a goal is agreed upon.
If every committer is free to do whatever they want to the product and
feels no obligation to work on team goals, the PMC has a hard time
coming up with the things that a user needs.
It appears that the latest Bug Crush is a counterexample to my point.
For that goal, it appears that the community made some decisions about
what need to be done and people actually put in a huge effort to work
together to achieve the goal.
So we know that it can be done.

I am only a new person here, so you can take my points with a grain of salt.

These are the main reasons why I have not yet made the decision to use
OFBiz to run my little business.
I can not afford to get into a situation where I can not manage because
of the ERP choice.
If running OFBiz is going to take all of my time, I have to look elsewhere.
I want something that installs and works OOTB and does the "advertised"
ERP functions with no additional work on my side and something that can
be expanded (I hope in conjunction with others with similar needs) as I
support more business functions using OFBiz.

I want to see an organization capable of supporting the product in the
long term.
I am willing to contribute but I need to see some leadership in the PMC
in addressing these concerns.

This discussion is a good sign to me that the problem is getting exposed
and the key players are starting to put their cards on the table.

Ron

On 13/11/2014 6:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> 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 thread http://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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
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
>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Ron Wheeler
Does this solve ASF's issue about having users access the main servers?
What do you put on the mirrors and how do you stop users from accessing
the development SVN which is ASF's concern?

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator

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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Ron Wheeler
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.

That may be the practical side of Apache's urging to get the releases
following their guidelines.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator

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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Pierre Smits

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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Ron Wheeler
I don't know anything about the conversations with ASF but I suspect for
them it is a policy issue.
They have 200 projects and don't want to have to follow-up with each one
to see when their use of the ASF infrastructure is excessive.
They don't have the resources to chase each project to verify the source
of the SVN traffic.

They have some projects that get tens of thousands of downloads per day
and some that don't have 10 in a week.

If OFBiz never becomes a "successful" product, there is no problem but
before it gets to be the number 2 or three ERP, this will cause ASF a
big headache.

Ron


On 13/11/2014 4:51 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:

> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Pierre Smits
Ron,

The board of the ASF do keep taps on each of the TL projects. See http://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes.
The board has insights into all of the projects, whether it is through quarterly reports by the V.P., or through ASF members being part of the projects' communities, or others mailing to private@.a.o. when they feel something is structurally wrong within the project. Don't worry about that.

But rest assured that not only the board welcomes it when a project takes into consideration the cost of operations related to how they operate. Believing that everything a project does is for free and costs nothing is a pipe dream.

But are we not straying from the original intent of this mail thread?

Pierre

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad

> Op 13 nov. 2014 om 23:08 heeft Ron Wheeler <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>
> I don't know anything about the conversations with ASF but I suspect for them it is a policy issue.
> They have 200 projects and don't want to have to follow-up with each one to see when their use of the ASF infrastructure is excessive.
> They don't have the resources to chase each project to verify the source of the SVN traffic.
>
> They have some projects that get tens of thousands of downloads per day and some that don't have 10 in a week.
>
> If OFBiz never becomes a "successful" product, there is no problem but before it gets to be the number 2 or three ERP, this will cause ASF a big headache.
>
> Ron
>
>
>> On 13/11/2014 4:51 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>> 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
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Pierre Smits
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
As I already have explained in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5464, in the first quarter of
this year, a release could even be more compact.

Regards,

Pierre Smits

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

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
In reply to this post by Pierre Smits
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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Jacopo Cappellato-4
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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Jacopo Cappellato-4
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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggest branch rather than release strategy?

Ron Wheeler
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
Can we start by separating the list into
Case 1 - Required. Were released in the past so have an implied
warranty,  known to be used in production situations,  were part of
previous releases or have current activity
Case 2 - Definitely don't need. Never finished. Tests that never worked.
Case 3 - Not sure. Can not remember who started this.

This would add some specificity to the discussion and would allow people
to come forward with objections or offers of support.

Can we start to develop a KB about what modules interfere with other
modules, where this shows up and how does one fix the problem if we need
to run multiple modules that normally interfere?
This would help determine the work required to support releasing them
and might lead to useful discussions about dynamic configuration tools
that allow conflicting modules to co-exist.

Is there a wiki page for each of the case 1 modules?

Do we have volunteers to create and maintain the wiki pages at least?

Ron



On 14/11/2014 7:55 AM, Jacques Le Roux 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

1234