Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals

[Jacques Le Roux]

Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er... compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits
war please)...

For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link there is now
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started (BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
all the documentation needs update and pruning).

Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way: http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh

And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04 release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
(trunk or releases) and we need both!

Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation

Jacques


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

>I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>just because we let him do this.
> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>
>> Right
>>
>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>
>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>
>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>
>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>> out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Hans Bakker" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>
>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>
>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>
>
>

[hans_bakker]

Jacopo,

You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there
from the start without trying to get a consensus. Sure, if everybody
thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the
the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always very reliable and where
problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and
people selecting the download page should be aware of it.

Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.

So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the
amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the latest
version is following the latest internet developments.

Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page? If people
want to try it, where should they find the download link? And the trunk
demo, how do they find the download link here too?

So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the
download page was agreed or not.
Hans



On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>> Right
>>
>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>
>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<[hidden email]>
>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>
>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>
>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Hans Bakker" <[hidden email]>

> Jacopo,
>
> You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there from the start without trying to get a consensus. Sure, if
> everybody thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always
> very reliable and where problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and people selecting the download page
> should be aware of it.
>
> Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
> http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
> So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.

Wrong conclusion, this is rendered from our own doap_OFBiz.rdf (in website) so it has nothing to do with an Apache policies. It
still good to have it there. Those pages are not for end users, it's about projects, so fro developpers (no links to releases there)

> So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the
> latest version is following the latest internet developments.
>
> Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page? If people want to try it, where should they find the download link?
> And the trunk demo, how do they find the download link here too?

You mean https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Main+New+Features I guess? We could but a link to
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Source+Repository+and+Access from this page.

Anyway there is a lot to do regarding documentation, see for instance
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Documentation+Index what about "Apache OFBiz official documentation." (ie
http://localhost:8080/cmssite/cms/APACHE_OFBIZ_HTML), etc.

Jacques

> So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the download page was agreed or not.
> Hans
>
>
>
> On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>> just because we let him do this.
>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>> Right
>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>
>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>>> out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of
>>>>>>>>> the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get
>>>>>>>>>>> real benefit.
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our
>>>>>>>>>> change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up...
>>>>>>>>>> so far...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Apr 8, 2012, at 2:35 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Jacopo,
>
> You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there from the start without trying to get a consensus.

What are you talking about? I am shocked about how imprecise but this is blatant is ridiculous: what is the removal you are talking about? I simply added information about the new release schedule.

> Sure, if everybody thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always very reliable and where problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and people selecting the download page should be aware of it.
>
> Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
> http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
> So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.
>

Hans, are you serious? Or you really don't understand? We have prominent links (2 of them) to the svn from the main page and we have a full page dedicated to svn instructions:
http://ofbiz.apache.org/
https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html

and no one would ever think to remove them: svn is essential information to get new contributions.
The url to projects.apache.org (that *I* helped to have working on the DOAP file) is a good thing to have because it shows a summary of most relevant resources for OFBiz, including svn.

> So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the latest version is following the latest internet developments.
>
> Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page?

Do you mean the page that was created from a proposal I did a few years ago and that now you are using (undisturbed because of the lack of the community and PMC oversight on this) to add ads of your company and (unclear) links to your sites?
Here is what I would do there:
1) remove all the references to companies and external sites
2) keep it as a working document (as we are doing) to prepare official "what's new" pages specific for each release branch
3) add links to these release branch specific "what's new" pages from the README of the branch, from the OFBiz website etc..

> If people want to try it, where should they find the download link? And the trunk demo, how do they find the download link here too?

The checkout of source code is not a download and I didn't move the instructions: they are still there and there is a prominent link from the main page.
Hans, if you can concentrate it is not that difficult to get:
1) download page isfor "officially approved" releases only; the releases are served thru the ASF mirrors infrastructure that can *only* serve officially voted releases
2) the "source code/svn" page is for persons interested in the living versions of svn trunk and branches; we have already good information for this and in fact very few people ask "where are the source files?"

>
> So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the download page was agreed or not.

Ok, prepare your proposal and then start the vote thread.

Jacopo

> Hans
>
>
>
> On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>> Right
>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>
>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>

[hans_bakker]

Jacopo, i have a very simple question about a link which always worked:

http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip

It was normally shown on this page:
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/

now it does not work anymore.....

My point is that this link should be reasonable visible somewhere
preferably on the download page.

enter "ofbiz trunk current zip" in google and you will see it is used
pretty frequently (3030 times)
(it often also points to
http://build.ofbiz.org/builds/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip and other links)

If you simply not want do do what i asked for is fine. I now ran out of
steam finally. :-)

Regards,
Hans

On 04/08/2012 01:03 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> On Apr 8, 2012, at 2:35 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> Jacopo,
>>
>> You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there from the start without trying to get a consensus.
> What are you talking about? I am shocked about how imprecise but this is blatant is ridiculous: what is the removal you are talking about? I simply added information about the new release schedule.
>
>> Sure, if everybody thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always very reliable and where problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and people selecting the download page should be aware of it.
>>
>> Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
>> http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
>> So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.
>>
> Hans, are you serious? Or you really don't understand? We have prominent links (2 of them) to the svn from the main page and we have a full page dedicated to svn instructions:
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>
> and no one would ever think to remove them: svn is essential information to get new contributions.
> The url to projects.apache.org (that *I* helped to have working on the DOAP file) is a good thing to have because it shows a summary of most relevant resources for OFBiz, including svn.
>
>> So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the latest version is following the latest internet developments.
>>
>> Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page?
> Do you mean the page that was created from a proposal I did a few years ago and that now you are using (undisturbed because of the lack of the community and PMC oversight on this) to add ads of your company and (unclear) links to your sites?
> Here is what I would do there:
> 1) remove all the references to companies and external sites
> 2) keep it as a working document (as we are doing) to prepare official "what's new" pages specific for each release branch
> 3) add links to these release branch specific "what's new" pages from the README of the branch, from the OFBiz website etc..
>
>> If people want to try it, where should they find the download link? And the trunk demo, how do they find the download link here too?
> The checkout of source code is not a download and I didn't move the instructions: they are still there and there is a prominent link from the main page.
> Hans, if you can concentrate it is not that difficult to get:
> 1) download page isfor "officially approved" releases only; the releases are served thru the ASF mirrors infrastructure that can *only* serve officially voted releases
> 2) the "source code/svn" page is for persons interested in the living versions of svn trunk and branches; we have already good information for this and in fact very few people ask "where are the source files?"
>
>> So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the download page was agreed or not.
> Ok, prepare your proposal and then start the vote thread.
>
> Jacopo
>
>> Hans
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>> Right
>>>>
>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>
>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

To summarize: you were accusing me and pointing your finger to my commit even if my commit doesn't have anything to do with what you are reporting here.

Jacopo

On Apr 8, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Jacopo, i have a very simple question about a link which always worked:
>
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip
>
> It was normally shown on this page:
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/
>
> now it does not work anymore.....
>
> My point is that this link should be reasonable visible somewhere preferably on the download page.
>
> enter "ofbiz trunk current zip" in google and you will see it is used pretty frequently (3030 times)
> (it often also points to http://build.ofbiz.org/builds/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip and other links)
>
> If you simply not want do do what i asked for is fine. I now ran out of steam finally. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On 04/08/2012 01:03 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2012, at 2:35 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> Jacopo,
>>>
>>> You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there from the start without trying to get a consensus.
>> What are you talking about? I am shocked about how imprecise but this is blatant is ridiculous: what is the removal you are talking about? I simply added information about the new release schedule.
>>
>>> Sure, if everybody thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always very reliable and where problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and people selecting the download page should be aware of it.
>>>
>>> Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
>>> http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
>>> So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.
>>>
>> Hans, are you serious? Or you really don't understand? We have prominent links (2 of them) to the svn from the main page and we have a full page dedicated to svn instructions:
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>
>> and no one would ever think to remove them: svn is essential information to get new contributions.
>> The url to projects.apache.org (that *I* helped to have working on the DOAP file) is a good thing to have because it shows a summary of most relevant resources for OFBiz, including svn.
>>
>>> So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the latest version is following the latest internet developments.
>>>
>>> Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page?
>> Do you mean the page that was created from a proposal I did a few years ago and that now you are using (undisturbed because of the lack of the community and PMC oversight on this) to add ads of your company and (unclear) links to your sites?
>> Here is what I would do there:
>> 1) remove all the references to companies and external sites
>> 2) keep it as a working document (as we are doing) to prepare official "what's new" pages specific for each release branch
>> 3) add links to these release branch specific "what's new" pages from the README of the branch, from the OFBiz website etc..
>>
>>> If people want to try it, where should they find the download link? And the trunk demo, how do they find the download link here too?
>> The checkout of source code is not a download and I didn't move the instructions: they are still there and there is a prominent link from the main page.
>> Hans, if you can concentrate it is not that difficult to get:
>> 1) download page isfor "officially approved" releases only; the releases are served thru the ASF mirrors infrastructure that can *only* serve officially voted releases
>> 2) the "source code/svn" page is for persons interested in the living versions of svn trunk and branches; we have already good information for this and in fact very few people ask "where are the source files?"
>>
>>> So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the download page was agreed or not.
>> Ok, prepare your proposal and then start the vote thread.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>>> Right
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>>
>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":

http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html

I am quoting here a relevant part:

=================================
What Is A Release?
Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below.

During the process of developing software and preparing a release, various packages are made available to the developer community for testing purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test packages, then remove them.

Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often. Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
=================================

Jacopo

On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er... compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war please)...
>
> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link there is now
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started (BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
>
> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way: http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
>
> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04 release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
>
> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
>
> Jacques
>
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>> just because we let him do this.
>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>
>>> Right
>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>
>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>
>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>
>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>>> out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>
>>

[hans_bakker]

Hi Jacopo,

if that is the case i apologize, we got so far carried away, i lost
track completely, that i went back to the original question.

Regards,
Hans


On 04/08/2012 02:45 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> To summarize: you were accusing me and pointing your finger to my commit even if my commit doesn't have anything to do with what you are reporting here.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> Jacopo, i have a very simple question about a link which always worked:
>>
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip
>>
>> It was normally shown on this page:
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/
>>
>> now it does not work anymore.....
>>
>> My point is that this link should be reasonable visible somewhere preferably on the download page.
>>
>> enter "ofbiz trunk current zip" in google and you will see it is used pretty frequently (3030 times)
>> (it often also points to http://build.ofbiz.org/builds/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip and other links)
>>
>> If you simply not want do do what i asked for is fine. I now ran out of steam finally. :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/08/2012 01:03 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> On Apr 8, 2012, at 2:35 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jacopo,
>>>>
>>>> You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there from the start without trying to get a consensus.
>>> What are you talking about? I am shocked about how imprecise but this is blatant is ridiculous: what is the removal you are talking about? I simply added information about the new release schedule.
>>>
>>>> Sure, if everybody thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always very reliable and where problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and people selecting the download page should be aware of it.
>>>>
>>>> Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
>>>> http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
>>>> So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.
>>>>
>>> Hans, are you serious? Or you really don't understand? We have prominent links (2 of them) to the svn from the main page and we have a full page dedicated to svn instructions:
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>
>>> and no one would ever think to remove them: svn is essential information to get new contributions.
>>> The url to projects.apache.org (that *I* helped to have working on the DOAP file) is a good thing to have because it shows a summary of most relevant resources for OFBiz, including svn.
>>>
>>>> So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the latest version is following the latest internet developments.
>>>>
>>>> Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page?
>>> Do you mean the page that was created from a proposal I did a few years ago and that now you are using (undisturbed because of the lack of the community and PMC oversight on this) to add ads of your company and (unclear) links to your sites?
>>> Here is what I would do there:
>>> 1) remove all the references to companies and external sites
>>> 2) keep it as a working document (as we are doing) to prepare official "what's new" pages specific for each release branch
>>> 3) add links to these release branch specific "what's new" pages from the README of the branch, from the OFBiz website etc..
>>>
>>>> If people want to try it, where should they find the download link? And the trunk demo, how do they find the download link here too?
>>> The checkout of source code is not a download and I didn't move the instructions: they are still there and there is a prominent link from the main page.
>>> Hans, if you can concentrate it is not that difficult to get:
>>> 1) download page isfor "officially approved" releases only; the releases are served thru the ASF mirrors infrastructure that can *only* serve officially voted releases
>>> 2) the "source code/svn" page is for persons interested in the living versions of svn trunk and branches; we have already good information for this and in fact very few people ask "where are the source files?"
>>>
>>>> So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the download page was agreed or not.
>>> Ok, prepare your proposal and then start the vote thread.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
>>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques

[hans_bakker]

The page has a button "Download" to point a user (developer or not) to
the download of ofbiz system files.

Trunk should be part of that.

Regards,
Hans

On 04/08/2012 03:06 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>
> I am quoting here a relevant part:
>
> =================================
> What Is A Release?
> Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below.
>
> During the process of developing software and preparing a release, various packages are made available to the developer community for testing purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test packages, then remove them.
>
> Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often. Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
> =================================
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er... compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war please)...
>>
>> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
>> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
>> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
>> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link there is now
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started (BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
>> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
>>
>> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way: http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
>>
>> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
>> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04 release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
>> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
>>
>> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>>> just because we let him do this.
>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>> Right
>>>>
>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>
>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>>>> out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

"Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package."

Jacopo


On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> The page has a button "Download" to point a user (developer or not) to the download of ofbiz system files.
>
> Trunk should be part of that.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On 04/08/2012 03:06 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>
>> I am quoting here a relevant part:
>>
>> =================================
>> What Is A Release?
>> Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below.
>>
>> During the process of developing software and preparing a release, various packages are made available to the developer community for testing purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test packages, then remove them.
>>
>> Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often. Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
>> =================================
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er... compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war please)...
>>>
>>> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
>>> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
>>> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
>>> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link there is now
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started (BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
>>> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
>>>
>>> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way: http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
>>>
>>> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
>>> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04 release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
>>> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
>>>
>>> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>>>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>>>> just because we let him do this.
>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>>>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>>>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>>> Right
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>>
>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>>>>> out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>>>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>

[Scott Gray-2]

Wow what a long thread for such a simple issue, thanks for being so patient Jacopo.

At the end of the day users simply shouldn't be downloading the trunk, it's intended for OFBiz developers and testers only.  To pretend that the trunk is bug free is and "all problems are fixed within hours" is naive at best and a straight out lie at worst.  The trunk also isn't guaranteed to conform to the ASLv2 and at numerous points in the past it hasn't.  Continuous deployment from the trunk is a flawed strategy that puts the stability of your system into the hands of a random collection of OFBiz committers of varying quality, how that makes good business sense to anyone is beyond me.

Regards
Scott

On 8/04/2012, at 8:31 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> "Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package."
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> The page has a button "Download" to point a user (developer or not) to the download of ofbiz system files.
>>
>> Trunk should be part of that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/08/2012 03:06 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>>
>>> I am quoting here a relevant part:
>>>
>>> =================================
>>> What Is A Release?
>>> Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below.
>>>
>>> During the process of developing software and preparing a release, various packages are made available to the developer community for testing purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test packages, then remove them.
>>>
>>> Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often. Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
>>> =================================
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er... compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war please)...
>>>>
>>>> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
>>>> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
>>>> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
>>>> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link there is now
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started (BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
>>>> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way: http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
>>>>
>>>> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
>>>> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04 release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
>>>> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
>>>>
>>>> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>>>>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>>>>> just because we let him do this.
>>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>>>>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>>>>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>>>>>> out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>>>>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>
>

[Pierre Smits]

Hi All,

I think it is very unwise to let endusers use the most disruptive version
available (the trunk) for evaluation purposes. It should only be available
for developers or other, more technically experienced persons who want to
assess the underlying (technical) implementations.

We have both communications in place. At the right places in the site.

The statement "the trunk is bug free is and all problems are fixed within
hours" not only misleads the enduser, but it also puts an enormous pressure
on developers and committers. Plus, it might lead to the ASF being liable
for not delivering.

Regards,

Pierre

Op 8 april 2012 10:55 schreef Scott Gray <[hidden email]> het
volgende:

> Wow what a long thread for such a simple issue, thanks for being so
> patient Jacopo.
>
> At the end of the day users simply shouldn't be downloading the trunk,
> it's intended for OFBiz developers and testers only.  To pretend that the
> trunk is bug free is and "all problems are fixed within hours" is naive at
> best and a straight out lie at worst.  The trunk also isn't guaranteed to
> conform to the ASLv2 and at numerous points in the past it hasn't.
>  Continuous deployment from the trunk is a flawed strategy that puts the
> stability of your system into the hands of a random collection of OFBiz
> committers of varying quality, how that makes good business sense to anyone
> is beyond me.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 8/04/2012, at 8:31 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
> > "Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage
> non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release
> candidates, or any other similar package."
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
> >
> > On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >
> >> The page has a button "Download" to point a user (developer or not) to
> the download of ofbiz system files.
> >>
> >> Trunk should be part of that.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Hans
> >>
> >> On 04/08/2012 03:06 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>> By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
> >>>
> >>> I am quoting here a relevant part:
> >>>
> >>> =================================
> >>> What Is A Release?
> >>> Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the
> group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the
> group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being
> instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each
> PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label
> the package is a secondary issue, described below.
> >>>
> >>> During the process of developing software and preparing a release,
> various packages are made available to the developer community for testing
> purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might
> encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots,
> release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are
> supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list
> (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the
> package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test
> packages, then remove them.
> >>>
> >>> Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for
> releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often.
> Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
> >>> =================================
> >>>
> >>> Jacopo
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er...
> compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war
> please)...
> >>>>
> >>>> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain
> that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
> >>>> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for
> the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
> >>>> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a
> big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
> >>>> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link
> there is now
> >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started(BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
> >>>> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way:
> http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
> >>>>
> >>>> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time
> now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
> >>>> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04
> release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
> >>>> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacques
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
> >>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by
> Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
> >>>>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power,
> the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
> >>>>> just because we let him do this.
> >>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the
> trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
> >>>>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in
> favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
> >>>>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing
> this just to please Hans.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
> >>>>>> Right
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk
> (obvious)
> >>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
> >>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still
> potential OFBiz users
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
> >>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
> >>>>>> out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
> >>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state
> of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
> >>>>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include
> there links to download code that has not been officially
> >>>>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF
> asked us to fix the page in the past.
> >>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become
> "more official").
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at
> least mentioned.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section
> containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and
> achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in
> advance the migration of their custom instance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st
> official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site
> update and especially demos updates)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of
> other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should
> be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a
> bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead
> regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers
> activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>
> >>
> >
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Pierre Smits" <[hidden email]>
> Hi All,
>
> I think it is very unwise to let endusers use the most disruptive version
> available (the trunk) for evaluation purposes. It should only be available
> for developers or other, more technically experienced persons who want to
> assess the underlying (technical) implementations.
>
> We have both communications in place. At the right places in the site.

+1

> The statement "the trunk is bug free is and all problems are fixed within
> hours" not only misleads the enduser, but it also puts an enormous pressure
> on developers and committers. Plus, it might lead to the ASF being liable
> for not delivering.

Seems most of us are heading in the same direction..

Jacques

> Regards,
>
> Pierre
>
> Op 8 april 2012 10:55 schreef Scott Gray <[hidden email]> het
> volgende:
>
>> Wow what a long thread for such a simple issue, thanks for being so
>> patient Jacopo.
>>
>> At the end of the day users simply shouldn't be downloading the trunk,
>> it's intended for OFBiz developers and testers only.  To pretend that the
>> trunk is bug free is and "all problems are fixed within hours" is naive at
>> best and a straight out lie at worst.  The trunk also isn't guaranteed to
>> conform to the ASLv2 and at numerous points in the past it hasn't.
>>  Continuous deployment from the trunk is a flawed strategy that puts the
>> stability of your system into the hands of a random collection of OFBiz
>> committers of varying quality, how that makes good business sense to anyone
>> is beyond me.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 8/04/2012, at 8:31 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>> > "Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage
>> non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release
>> candidates, or any other similar package."
>> >
>> > Jacopo
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> >
>> >> The page has a button "Download" to point a user (developer or not) to
>> the download of ofbiz system files.
>> >>
>> >> Trunk should be part of that.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Hans
>> >>
>> >> On 04/08/2012 03:06 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> >>> By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>> >>>
>> >>> I am quoting here a relevant part:
>> >>>
>> >>> =================================
>> >>> What Is A Release?
>> >>> Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the
>> group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the
>> group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being
>> instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each
>> PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label
>> the package is a secondary issue, described below.
>> >>>
>> >>> During the process of developing software and preparing a release,
>> various packages are made available to the developer community for testing
>> purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might
>> encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots,
>> release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are
>> supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list
>> (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the
>> package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test
>> packages, then remove them.
>> >>>
>> >>> Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for
>> releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often.
>> Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
>> >>> =================================
>> >>>
>> >>> Jacopo
>> >>>
>> >>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er...
>> compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war
>> please)...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain
>> that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
>> >>>> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for
>> the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
>> >>>> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a
>> big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
>> >>>> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link
>> there is now
>> >>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started(BTW this needs certainly an update, but
>> actually
>> >>>> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way:
>> http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time
>> now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
>> >>>> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04
>> release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
>> >>>> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jacques
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>> >>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by
>> Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>> >>>>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power,
>> the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>> >>>>> just because we let him do this.
>> >>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the
>> trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>> >>>>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in
>> favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>> >>>>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing
>> this just to please Hans.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Jacopo
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>> >>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>> >>>>>> Right
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk
>> (obvious)
>> >>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>> >>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still
>> potential OFBiz users
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>> >>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>> >>>>>> out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
>> >>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state
>> of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>> >>>>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Jacopo
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<[hidden email]>
>> >>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Hans
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include
>> there links to download code that has not been officially
>> >>>>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF
>> asked us to fix the page in the past.
>> >>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become
>> "more official").
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at
>> least mentioned.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section
>> containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and
>> achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in
>> advance the migration of their custom instance.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st
>> official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site
>> update and especially demos updates)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of
>> other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should
>> be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a
>> bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead
>> regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers
>> activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
> Some questions to the community:
> =======================
> R10.04 is now our stable branch and we have decided to no longer support releases under our current stable. Since we have enough
> resources, some time ago, I had suggested to run in demo not only the trunk and stable but also the previous release (would be at
> the moment R09.04). Christian has done the work for that (thanks Christian!). But now, because of our new policy regarding
> releases,
> I would like to ask the community if we should run 3 (trunk, stable, older) or only 2 demos?

I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
redirection to ask to infra.

We currently have

trunk : demo-trunk
branch R10.04: demo-stable
branch R10.04: demo-old

So we do we currently want

trunk : demo-trunk
branch R10.04: demo-stable
branch R09.04: demo-old

or

trunk : demo-trunk
branch R11.04: demo-stable
branch R10.04: demo-old

or

Or only the trunk and last branch?

etc.

In other words which combination do you prefer?


> We are curently still running R09.04 as our stable demo. I saw that someone has done the work to be able to run R10.04
> (demo-branch10.4-setup.diff, not sure if it has been applied?). Is it not the time to switch to it as our stable?

It should be already done, since we don't support R09.04 anymore. But on the other hand, there are certainly still interested users
out there and supporting or not is not a criterium

> Also, since we now we have some RTL users and our default Theme Tomahawk does not allow them to use their prefered or mother
> tongue
> language. I'd like to ask the community if they would not like to change for Flat-Grey? An alternative would be to keep Tomahawk
> as
> default and put a word about that in footer, but it's less convenient...

Nobody care?

Jacques

> Jacques

[Christian Geisert]

Jacques Le Roux schrieb:

[..]

> I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra
> (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
> redirection to ask to infra.

I'm about to get it finally running..

Christian

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Christian,

From: "Christian Geisert" <[hidden email]>

> Jacques Le Roux schrieb:
>
> [..]
>
>> I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra
>> (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
>> redirection to ask to infra.
>
> I'm about to get it finally running..
>
> Christian

[Pierre Smits]

Hi Jacques,

I believe it is not good to expose potential end users to something that
can be expected to be broken (meaning trunk) as a demo environment, because
of the high rate of development taking place in that environment.

I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules, regulations
and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.

Therefore:
-1 on having trunk as demo
+1 on having latest stable release as demo

Given the fact that the older release branches are just maintenance
releases and that we recommend that new end users should look at the latest
stable release (currently 10.04.02) it would not make sense to do demos of
older branches.

Regards,

Pierre

Op 22 april 2012 10:09 schreef Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]
> het volgende:

> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>
>> Some questions to the community:
>> =======================
>> R10.04 is now our stable branch and we have decided to no longer support
>> releases under our current stable. Since we have enough
>> resources, some time ago, I had suggested to run in demo not only the
>> trunk and stable but also the previous release (would be at
>> the moment R09.04). Christian has done the work for that (thanks
>> Christian!). But now, because of our new policy regarding
>> releases,
>> I would like to ask the community if we should run 3 (trunk, stable,
>> older) or only 2 demos?
>>
>
> I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra
> (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
> redirection to ask to infra.
>
> We currently have
>
> trunk : demo-trunk
> branch R10.04: demo-stable
> branch R10.04: demo-old
>
> So we do we currently want
>
> trunk : demo-trunk
> branch R10.04: demo-stable
> branch R09.04: demo-old
>
> or
>
> trunk : demo-trunk
> branch R11.04: demo-stable
> branch R10.04: demo-old
>
> or
>
> Or only the trunk and last branch?
>
> etc.
>
> In other words which combination do you prefer?
>
>
>  We are curently still running R09.04 as our stable demo. I saw that
>> someone has done the work to be able to run R10.04
>> (demo-branch10.4-setup.diff, not sure if it has been applied?). Is it not
>> the time to switch to it as our stable?
>>
>
> It should be already done, since we don't support R09.04 anymore. But on
> the other hand, there are certainly still interested users out there and
> supporting or not is not a criterium
>
>  Also, since we now we have some RTL users and our default Theme Tomahawk
>> does not allow them to use their prefered or mother
>> tongue
>> language. I'd like to ask the community if they would not like to change
>> for Flat-Grey? An alternative would be to keep Tomahawk
>> as
>> default and put a word about that in footer, but it's less convenient...
>>
>
> Nobody care?
>
> Jacques
>
>  Jacques
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:

> I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules, regulations
> and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.

We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and intended for larger audience.

Jacopo

[Pierre Smits]

I agree.

Demo environments is not for OFBiz developers.
If you want to have an OFBiz developer to have a viewpoint on trunk where
they can experience what has been changed in trunk I believe that there are
betters means available and in place already (SVN, CI reports, etc)

As far as I can see it, a demo environment of trunk needs to have a regular
(daily?) deployment of code and demo data. This could potentially lead to
having an upload being done to the demo location at just the moment that a
OFBiz committer has partially uploaded his commits to trunk and the demo
breaks during build and anyone (not only OFBiz developers) experiences a
broken demo. Giving the community unnecessary headaches about fixing the
demo environment than OFBiz.
Look at how often Jacques had to step in to look at why demo-trunk had been
broken.

This is not something we should want to have...

Regards,

Pierre

Op 23 april 2012 09:27 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
[hidden email]> het volgende:

> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>
> > I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules,
> regulations
> > and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
>
> We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is
> unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and intended
> for larger audience.
>
> Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

What we could do is still support it but don't link it from main site and such
Because it's very convenient for committers to have another running trunk system

Jacques

From: "Pierre Smits" <[hidden email]>

>I agree.
>
> Demo environments is not for OFBiz developers.
> If you want to have an OFBiz developer to have a viewpoint on trunk where
> they can experience what has been changed in trunk I believe that there are
> betters means available and in place already (SVN, CI reports, etc)
>
> As far as I can see it, a demo environment of trunk needs to have a regular
> (daily?) deployment of code and demo data. This could potentially lead to
> having an upload being done to the demo location at just the moment that a
> OFBiz committer has partially uploaded his commits to trunk and the demo
> breaks during build and anyone (not only OFBiz developers) experiences a
> broken demo. Giving the community unnecessary headaches about fixing the
> demo environment than OFBiz.
> Look at how often Jacques had to step in to look at why demo-trunk had been
> broken.
>
> This is not something we should want to have...
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre
>
> Op 23 april 2012 09:27 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
> [hidden email]> het volgende:
>
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>
>> > I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules,
>> regulations
>> > and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
>>
>> We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is
>> unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and intended
>> for larger audience.
>>
>> Jacopo
>