This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ (committers only) or from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ (everyone else) and are: * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 [ -1] do not release This vote will be closed in 5 days. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html The following text is quoted from the above url: "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager." Kind Regards, Jacopo |
Administrator
|
Tests done OK
MD5 OK +1 Jacques Le 09/06/2014 16:09, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : > This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". > > The release files can be downloaded from here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ > > (committers only) or from here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ > > (everyone else) > > and are: > > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) > * KEYS: text file with keys > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes > > Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). > > Vote: > > [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 > [ -1] do not release > > This vote will be closed in 5 days. > For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > The following text is quoted from the above url: > "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager." > > Kind Regards, > > Jacopo > -- |
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
+1
Regards Scott On 9 June 2014 15:09:02 BST, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: >This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release >number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the >release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". > >The release files can be downloaded from here: > >https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ > >(committers only) or from here: > >http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ > >(everyone else) > >and are: > >* apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 >branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >* KEYS: text file with keys >* apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >* apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes > >Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >instructions on testing the signatures see >http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). > >Vote: > >[ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >[ -1] do not release > >This vote will be closed in 5 days. >For more details about this process please read >http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > >The following text is quoted from the above url: >"Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for >release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases >may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote >if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate >decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager." > >Kind Regards, > >Jacopo -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. |
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
+1
Regards, Medhat On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato < [hidden email]> wrote: > This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 > branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: > "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache > OFBiz 12.04.02". > > The release files can be downloaded from here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ > > (committers only) or from here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ > > (everyone else) > > and are: > > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 > branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) > * KEYS: text file with keys > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes > > Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions > on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html > ). > > Vote: > > [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 > [ -1] do not release > > This vote will be closed in 5 days. > For more details about this process please read > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > The following text is quoted from the above url: > "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval > -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and > there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be > vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone > identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies > with the individual serving as release manager." > > Kind Regards, > > Jacopo |
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
+1
-- Kind Regards, Ashish Vijaywargiya On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Jacopo Cappellato < [hidden email]> wrote: > This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 > branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: > "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache > OFBiz 12.04.02". > > The release files can be downloaded from here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ > > (committers only) or from here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ > > (everyone else) > > and are: > > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 > branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) > * KEYS: text file with keys > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes > > Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions > on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html > ). > > Vote: > > [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 > [ -1] do not release > > This vote will be closed in 5 days. > For more details about this process please read > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > The following text is quoted from the above url: > "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval > -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and > there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be > vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone > identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies > with the individual serving as release manager." > > Kind Regards, > > Jacopo |
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
+1
Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors On Jun 9, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: > This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". > > The release files can be downloaded from here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ > > (committers only) or from here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ > > (everyone else) > > and are: > > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) > * KEYS: text file with keys > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes > > Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). > > Vote: > > [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 > [ -1] do not release > > This vote will be closed in 5 days. > For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > The following text is quoted from the above url: > "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager." > > Kind Regards, > > Jacopo |
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
+1
Successfully tested both automated and manual tests. Kind regards Anahita 2014-06-09 16:09 GMT+02:00 Jacopo Cappellato < [hidden email]>: > This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 > branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: > "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache > OFBiz 12.04.02". > > The release files can be downloaded from here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ > > (committers only) or from here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ > > (everyone else) > > and are: > > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 > branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) > * KEYS: text file with keys > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes > > Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions > on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html > ). > > Vote: > > [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 > [ -1] do not release > > This vote will be closed in 5 days. > For more details about this process please read > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > The following text is quoted from the above url: > "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval > -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and > there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be > vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone > identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies > with the individual serving as release manager." > > Kind Regards, > > Jacopo |
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
+1
Jacopo On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: > This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". > > The release files can be downloaded from here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ > > (committers only) or from here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ > > (everyone else) > > and are: > > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) > * KEYS: text file with keys > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes > > Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). > > Vote: > > [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 > [ -1] do not release > > This vote will be closed in 5 days. > For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > The following text is quoted from the above url: > "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager." > > Kind Regards, > > Jacopo |
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
Congratulations, this vote has passed with the following results:
[+1] 7 [-1] 0 The minimum (3) number of +1 votes from PMC members has been reached with 5 votes from Jacques, Scott, Ashish, Anil, Jacopo I will proceed with the remaining steps required to release the package. Jacopo On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: > This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". > > The release files can be downloaded from here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ > > (committers only) or from here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ > > (everyone else) > > and are: > > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) > * KEYS: text file with keys > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file > * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes > > Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). > > Vote: > > [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 > [ -1] do not release > > This vote will be closed in 5 days. > For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > The following text is quoted from the above url: > "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager." > > Kind Regards, > > Jacopo |
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
-1
Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless the test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" (on-line help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything when you click on it). I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. Are the new features at least documented? Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the documentation? If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without any attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation that it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a release, mandatory. Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which the PMC agrees? Ron On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > +1 > > Jacopo > > On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >> >> The release files can be downloaded from here: >> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >> >> (committers only) or from here: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >> >> (everyone else) >> >> and are: >> >> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >> * KEYS: text file with keys >> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes >> >> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >> >> Vote: >> >> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >> [ -1] do not release >> >> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >> For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >> >> The following text is quoted from the above url: >> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager." >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Jacopo > -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: [hidden email] skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 |
This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
existed when the release branch was created. If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, then feel free to submit patches to Jira. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: > -1 > > Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line > help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to > install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and > you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless the > test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" (on-line > help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything > when you click on it). > > I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. > > Are the new features at least documented? > Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the > documentation? > > If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without any > attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation that > it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a > release, mandatory. > > Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of > documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which > the PMC agrees? > > > Ron > > > On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> +1 >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major >>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede >>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >>> >>> The release files can be downloaded from here: >>> >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >>> >>> (committers only) or from here: >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >>> >>> (everyone else) >>> >>> and are: >>> >>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 >>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >>> * KEYS: text file with keys >>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes >>> >>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >>> instructions on testing the signatures see >>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >>> >>> Vote: >>> >>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >>> [ -1] do not release >>> >>> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >>> For more details about this process please read >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>> >>> The following text is quoted from the above url: >>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively >>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the >>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases >>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >>> manager." >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Jacopo >> > > |
And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation? Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)? The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a draft Release Note. Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a version 12.x.x release? Ron On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that > existed when the release branch was created. > > If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, > then feel free to submit patches to Jira. > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > > On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >> -1 >> >> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line >> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to >> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and >> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless the >> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" (on-line >> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything >> when you click on it). >> >> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. >> >> Are the new features at least documented? >> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the >> documentation? >> >> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without any >> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation that >> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a >> release, mandatory. >> >> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of >> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which >> the PMC agrees? >> >> >> Ron >> >> >> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> +1 >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato >>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major >>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede >>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >>>> >>>> The release files can be downloaded from here: >>>> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >>>> >>>> (committers only) or from here: >>>> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >>>> >>>> (everyone else) >>>> >>>> and are: >>>> >>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 >>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >>>> * KEYS: text file with keys >>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes >>>> >>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >>>> instructions on testing the signatures see >>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >>>> >>>> Vote: >>>> >>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >>>> [ -1] do not release >>>> >>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >>>> For more details about this process please read >>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>> >>>> The following text is quoted from the above url: >>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively >>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the >>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases >>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >>>> manager." >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>> >> >> > -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: [hidden email] skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 |
Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
Therefore, there is no "industry standard." Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using the software and asking questions on the user mailing list. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: > > And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation? > Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what > the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)? > The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a > draft Release Note. > > Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be > correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a > version 12.x.x release? > > Ron > > On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that >> existed when the release branch was created. >> >> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, >> then feel free to submit patches to Jira. >> >> Adrian Crum >> Sandglass Software >> www.sandglass-software.com >> >> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>> -1 >>> >>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line >>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to >>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and >>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless the >>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" (on-line >>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything >>> when you click on it). >>> >>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. >>> >>> Are the new features at least documented? >>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the >>> documentation? >>> >>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without any >>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation that >>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a >>> release, mandatory. >>> >>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of >>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which >>> the PMC agrees? >>> >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major >>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede >>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >>>>> >>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here: >>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >>>>> >>>>> (committers only) or from here: >>>>> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >>>>> >>>>> (everyone else) >>>>> >>>>> and are: >>>>> >>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 >>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys >>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes >>>>> >>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see >>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >>>>> >>>>> Vote: >>>>> >>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >>>>> [ -1] do not release >>>>> >>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >>>>> For more details about this process please read >>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>>> >>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url: >>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively >>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the >>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases >>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >>>>> manager." >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>> >>> >>> >> > > |
On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project. > Therefore, there is no "industry standard." Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they are not paid? There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation. > > Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using > the software and asking questions on the user mailing list. > No wonder the docs are in such poor shape. It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer. Ron > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > > On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >> >> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation? >> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what >> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)? >> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a >> draft Release Note. >> >> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be >> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a >> version 12.x.x release? >> >> Ron >> >> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that >>> existed when the release branch was created. >>> >>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, >>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira. >>> >>> Adrian Crum >>> Sandglass Software >>> www.sandglass-software.com >>> >>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>> -1 >>>> >>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line >>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to >>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and >>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless >>>> the >>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" >>>> (on-line >>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything >>>> when you click on it). >>>> >>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. >>>> >>>> Are the new features at least documented? >>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the >>>> documentation? >>>> >>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without >>>> any >>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation >>>> that >>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a >>>> release, mandatory. >>>> >>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of >>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which >>>> the PMC agrees? >>>> >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato >>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major >>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede >>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >>>>>> >>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >>>>>> >>>>>> (committers only) or from here: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >>>>>> >>>>>> (everyone else) >>>>>> >>>>>> and are: >>>>>> >>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 >>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys >>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: >>>>>> hashes >>>>>> >>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see >>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >>>>>> >>>>>> Vote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >>>>>> [ -1] do not release >>>>>> >>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >>>>>> For more details about this process please read >>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>>>> >>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url: >>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively >>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the >>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most >>>>>> cases >>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >>>>>> manager." >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: [hidden email] skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 |
I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are
you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards? Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: > On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project. >> Therefore, there is no "industry standard." > > Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that > meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they > are not paid? > > > There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation. > >> >> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using >> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list. >> > No wonder the docs are in such poor shape. > It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to > reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config > files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else > writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer. > > Ron > >> Adrian Crum >> Sandglass Software >> www.sandglass-software.com >> >> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>> >>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation? >>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what >>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)? >>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a >>> draft Release Note. >>> >>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be >>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a >>> version 12.x.x release? >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that >>>> existed when the release branch was created. >>>> >>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, >>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira. >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum >>>> Sandglass Software >>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>> >>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>> -1 >>>>> >>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line >>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to >>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and >>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless >>>>> the >>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" >>>>> (on-line >>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything >>>>> when you click on it). >>>>> >>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. >>>>> >>>>> Are the new features at least documented? >>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the >>>>> documentation? >>>>> >>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without >>>>> any >>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation >>>>> that >>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a >>>>> release, mandatory. >>>>> >>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of >>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which >>>>> the PMC agrees? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato >>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major >>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede >>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (committers only) or from here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (everyone else) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 >>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys >>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: >>>>>>> hashes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see >>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >>>>>>> [ -1] do not release >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >>>>>>> For more details about this process please read >>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url: >>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively >>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the >>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most >>>>>>> cases >>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >>>>>>> manager." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > |
Adrian,
Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying to answer the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members can indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the product.... Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum < [hidden email]> wrote: > I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are > you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards? > > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > > On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: > >> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project. >>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard." >>> >> >> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that >> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they >> are not paid? >> >> >> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation. >> >> >>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using >>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list. >>> >>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape. >> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to >> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config >> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else >> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer. >> >> Ron >> >> Adrian Crum >>> Sandglass Software >>> www.sandglass-software.com >>> >>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation? >>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what >>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)? >>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a >>>> draft Release Note. >>>> >>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be >>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a >>>> version 12.x.x release? >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that >>>>> existed when the release branch was created. >>>>> >>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, >>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira. >>>>> >>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>> >>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> -1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line >>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to >>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and >>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless >>>>>> the >>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" >>>>>> (on-line >>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything >>>>>> when you click on it). >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are the new features at least documented? >>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the >>>>>> documentation? >>>>>> >>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without >>>>>> any >>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation >>>>>> that >>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a >>>>>> release, mandatory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of >>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which >>>>>> the PMC agrees? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato >>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major >>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede >>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (everyone else) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and are: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 >>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys >>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: >>>>>>>> hashes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see >>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read >>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url: >>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively >>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the >>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most >>>>>>>> cases >>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >>>>>>>> manager." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> |
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-3
A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier
exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no comments or questions about documentation. I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was ready for use. I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation. The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end processes reflect the framework rather than the use case. Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of simple processes has been done correctly. I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need. The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on eCommerce. Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of OfBiz. I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties, AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking. It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work. I do not need more overhead. If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using it who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will never get to be a polished product. I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could help improve some of our processes. As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share. Probably just more ranting! Ron On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or > are you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your > standards? > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > > On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project. >>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard." >> >> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that >> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they >> are not paid? >> >> >> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation. >> >>> >>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using >>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list. >>> >> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape. >> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to >> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config >> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else >> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer. >> >> Ron >> >>> Adrian Crum >>> Sandglass Software >>> www.sandglass-software.com >>> >>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>> >>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation? >>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what >>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)? >>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a >>>> draft Release Note. >>>> >>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be >>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a >>>> version 12.x.x release? >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that >>>>> existed when the release branch was created. >>>>> >>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, >>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira. >>>>> >>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>> >>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>> -1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line >>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" >>>>>> (try to >>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database >>>>>> and >>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless >>>>>> the >>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" >>>>>> (on-line >>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do >>>>>> anything >>>>>> when you click on it). >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are the new features at least documented? >>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the >>>>>> documentation? >>>>>> >>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without >>>>>> any >>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation >>>>>> that >>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on >>>>>> in a >>>>>> release, mandatory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of >>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on >>>>>> which >>>>>> the PMC agrees? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato >>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major >>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will >>>>>>>> supersede >>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (everyone else) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and are: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the >>>>>>>> 12.04 >>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys >>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: >>>>>>>> hashes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see >>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read >>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url: >>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote >>>>>>>> affirmatively >>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most >>>>>>>> cases >>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >>>>>>>> manager." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Ron Wheeler President Artifact Software Inc email: [hidden email] skype: ronaldmwheeler phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 |
In reply to this post by Pierre Smits
I answered the questions. Why don't you take some time and actually read
my replies? Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/16/2014 1:20 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > Adrian, > > Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying to answer > the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members can > indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the > product.... > > Regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are >> you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards? >> >> >> Adrian Crum >> Sandglass Software >> www.sandglass-software.com >> >> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >> >>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> >>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project. >>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard." >>>> >>> >>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that >>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they >>> are not paid? >>> >>> >>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation. >>> >>> >>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using >>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list. >>>> >>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape. >>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to >>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config >>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else >>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer. >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> Adrian Crum >>>> Sandglass Software >>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>> >>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation? >>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what >>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)? >>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a >>>>> draft Release Note. >>>>> >>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be >>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a >>>>> version 12.x.x release? >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that >>>>>> existed when the release branch was created. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, >>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> -1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line >>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to >>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and >>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" >>>>>>> (on-line >>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything >>>>>>> when you click on it). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented? >>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the >>>>>>> documentation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a >>>>>>> release, mandatory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of >>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which >>>>>>> the PMC agrees? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major >>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede >>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (everyone else) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and are: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 >>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys >>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: >>>>>>>>> hashes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see >>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Vote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read >>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url: >>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively >>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the >>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most >>>>>>>>> cases >>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >>>>>>>>> manager." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> > |
In reply to this post by Ron Wheeler
Your evaluation of the UI is correct. It is very generic and it is
intended to demonstrate the data model and services. That is intentional. Every business is different, so a typical deployment will consist of a custom UI tailored for the target business. So, you are correct that most members of the dev mailing list use OFBiz a framework to build custom products. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/16/2014 1:54 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: > A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier > exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no > comments or questions about documentation. > > I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was > ready for use. > > I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation. > > The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end > processes reflect the framework rather than the use case. > Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of > simple processes has been done correctly. > > I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am > starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need. > > The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on > eCommerce. > Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of > OfBiz. > I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an > accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties, > AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking. > It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in > explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work. > I do not need more overhead. > > If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to > invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using > it who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will > never get to be a polished product. > > I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had > to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software > development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could > help improve some of our processes. > > As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do > go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team > members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share. > > Probably just more ranting! > > > Ron > > On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or >> are you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your >> standards? >> >> Adrian Crum >> Sandglass Software >> www.sandglass-software.com >> >> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project. >>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard." >>> >>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that >>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they >>> are not paid? >>> >>> >>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation. >>> >>>> >>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using >>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list. >>>> >>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape. >>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to >>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config >>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else >>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer. >>> >>> Ron >>> >>>> Adrian Crum >>>> Sandglass Software >>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>> >>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation? >>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what >>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)? >>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a >>>>> draft Release Note. >>>>> >>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be >>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a >>>>> version 12.x.x release? >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that >>>>>> existed when the release branch was created. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, >>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>>> -1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line >>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" >>>>>>> (try to >>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" >>>>>>> (on-line >>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do >>>>>>> anything >>>>>>> when you click on it). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented? >>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the >>>>>>> documentation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on >>>>>>> in a >>>>>>> release, mandatory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of >>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> the PMC agrees? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major >>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will >>>>>>>>> supersede >>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (everyone else) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and are: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the >>>>>>>>> 12.04 >>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys >>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: >>>>>>>>> hashes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see >>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Vote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read >>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url: >>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote >>>>>>>>> affirmatively >>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most >>>>>>>>> cases >>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >>>>>>>>> manager." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > |
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-3
Adrian,
My apologies, but I must have missed your answer to the question stated below. Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which the PMC agrees? Regard, Pierre Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > Op 16 jun. 2014 om 23:11 heeft Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven: > > I answered the questions. Why don't you take some time and actually read my replies? > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > >> On 6/16/2014 1:20 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: >> Adrian, >> >> Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying to answer >> the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members can >> indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the >> product.... >> >> Regards, >> >> Pierre Smits >> >> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >> Based Manufacturing, Professional >> Services and Retail & Trade >> http://www.orrtiz.com >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are >>> you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards? >>> >>> >>> Adrian Crum >>> Sandglass Software >>> www.sandglass-software.com >>> >>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project. >>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard." >>>> >>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that >>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they >>>> are not paid? >>>> >>>> >>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using >>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list. >>>>> >>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape. >>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to >>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config >>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else >>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer. >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum >>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation? >>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what >>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)? >>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a >>>>>> draft Release Note. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be >>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a >>>>>> version 12.x.x release? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that >>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, >>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line >>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to >>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and >>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" >>>>>>>> (on-line >>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything >>>>>>>> when you click on it). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented? >>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the >>>>>>>> documentation? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a >>>>>>>> release, mandatory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of >>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which >>>>>>>> the PMC agrees? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato >>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the >>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major >>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede >>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (everyone else) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and are: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 >>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) >>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys >>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file >>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: >>>>>>>>>> hashes >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for >>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see >>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Vote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 >>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days. >>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read >>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url: >>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively >>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the >>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most >>>>>>>>>> cases >>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >>>>>>>>>> manager." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >> |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |