release?

[Jacques Le Roux]

XP advise to work no more than 40 hours a week. Realist ?

I hope to do it one day :o)

Jacques

>
> So far my solicitations for opinions on this have yielded
> approximately 0 responses. That being the case, it will happen when I
> or someone gets interested enough in it to do the branch.
>
> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include
> whatever it includes. No specific features have been listed for
> implementation before the branch. No specific bugs have been listed
> for fixing before the branch.
>
> For my part I won't be getting aggressive on this until late May or
> early June. I simply don't have the time (eighty hour work weeks,
> plus tax season, plus I'm getting married in three weeks and the week
> after is JavaOne...). So yeah, the timing is just a tad inconvenient.
>
> Still, if any one of the PMC members wants to drive this, I'll
> certainly support it in spirit and in effort where I can.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 16, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Si Chen wrote:
>
> > So what are the plans right now for starting a release?
> >
> > David E. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> Here is that document for OFBiz:
> >>
> >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
> >>
> >> It hasn't been changed in a while, and it is clear about the
> >> preliminary nature of an initial release based on a release
> >> branch, but there is no real name for it yet. I guess my thought
> >> was really in two parts: the fact that the initial release isn't a
> >> big deal and shouldn't have press/marketing activity around it,
> >> and that we need to come up with a name or a way of denoting the
> >> preliminary nature of the initial release from the branch.
> >>
> >> In general the nature of OFBiz and therefore the release process
> >> is somewhat different from more infrastructure oriented projects,
> >> even those at the ASF, so how this all works out over time is
> >> still up in the air and what we have in the Release Plan is just
> >> our best guess and effort based on current understanding of
> >> limitations, resources, motivations of community participants, etc.
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Raj Saini wrote:
> >>
> >>> One way to go about release is how other Open Source projects
> >>> specially ASF projects do the releases. Standard generally these
> >>> projects follow are Milestones (e.g. M1, M2,...), Release
> >>> Candidates (RC1, RC2,...) and final release.
> >>>
> >>> Geronimo has this document (http://geronimo.apache.org/project-
> >>> policies.html) explaining their release process in detail.
> >>> Similar to this will be useful for Ofbiz.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Raj
> >>>
> >>> David E. Jones wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a good list, though we can probably drop off anything
> >>>> related to a marketing concern for now, like preparing a press
> >>>> release.
> >>>>
> >>>> At this point the developer/committer community in OFBiz seems
> >>>> to be _too_ busy, and a bunch of new user traffic coming into
> >>>> the project might be difficult to handle, and therefore
> >>>> contribute to the already fairly large pile up of un-addressed
> >>>> issues (we need help reviewing, commenting, etc as a pre-review
> >>>> to help committers, and this is a great way to move toward
> >>>> becoming a committer!).
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, we should probably wait for a couple of months for the
> >>>> branch to stabilize and get patched up with fixes before we do a
> >>>> major binary release on it and call it a real release, even a
> >>>> beta quality one. We could do a binary release immediately and
> >>>> flag it as beta or something... but unless someone wants to
> >>>> invest in testing before the branch, the testing will only be
> >>>> done through usage of the release branch after it exists.
> >>>>
> >>>> -David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think that we have to make a plan.
> >>>>> What I think should be done before/for the release is at least:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) fix or resolve at least the critical bugs: https://
> >>>>> issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
> >>>>> reset=true&pid=12310500&priority=2&resolution=-1
> >>>>> 2) of course, prepare the distribution as described here:
> >>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/1wE
> >>>>> 3) it would be nice to add a new ROOT index page to list all
> >>>>> the available applications (including the specialpurpose ones),
> >>>>> give some basic information about OFBiz (similar to the ones in
> >>>>> the Webtools main page, that I'd like to remove from there)
> >>>>> 4) prepare a good press release
> >>>>> 5) update the site's main page to announce it and update the
> >>>>> download page
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Si Chen wrote:
> >>>>>> What are the plans for doing the next OFBIZ release?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

[Si Chen-2]

Don't you have a 35-hour work week limit in France?

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> XP advise to work no more than 40 hours a week. Realist ?
>
> I hope to do it one day :o)
>
> Jacques
>
>  
>> So far my solicitations for opinions on this have yielded
>> approximately 0 responses. That being the case, it will happen when I
>> or someone gets interested enough in it to do the branch.
>>
>> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include
>> whatever it includes. No specific features have been listed for
>> implementation before the branch. No specific bugs have been listed
>> for fixing before the branch.
>>
>> For my part I won't be getting aggressive on this until late May or
>> early June. I simply don't have the time (eighty hour work weeks,
>> plus tax season, plus I'm getting married in three weeks and the week
>> after is JavaOne...). So yeah, the timing is just a tad inconvenient.
>>
>> Still, if any one of the PMC members wants to drive this, I'll
>> certainly support it in spirit and in effort where I can.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Apr 16, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Si Chen wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> So what are the plans right now for starting a release?
>>>
>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Here is that document for OFBiz:
>>>>
>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
>>>>
>>>> It hasn't been changed in a while, and it is clear about the
>>>> preliminary nature of an initial release based on a release
>>>> branch, but there is no real name for it yet. I guess my thought
>>>> was really in two parts: the fact that the initial release isn't a
>>>> big deal and shouldn't have press/marketing activity around it,
>>>> and that we need to come up with a name or a way of denoting the
>>>> preliminary nature of the initial release from the branch.
>>>>
>>>> In general the nature of OFBiz and therefore the release process
>>>> is somewhat different from more infrastructure oriented projects,
>>>> even those at the ASF, so how this all works out over time is
>>>> still up in the air and what we have in the Release Plan is just
>>>> our best guess and effort based on current understanding of
>>>> limitations, resources, motivations of community participants, etc.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Raj Saini wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> One way to go about release is how other Open Source projects
>>>>> specially ASF projects do the releases. Standard generally these
>>>>> projects follow are Milestones (e.g. M1, M2,...), Release
>>>>> Candidates (RC1, RC2,...) and final release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Geronimo has this document (http://geronimo.apache.org/project-
>>>>> policies.html) explaining their release process in detail.
>>>>> Similar to this will be useful for Ofbiz.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Raj
>>>>>
>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>          
>>>>>> This is a good list, though we can probably drop off anything
>>>>>> related to a marketing concern for now, like preparing a press
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point the developer/committer community in OFBiz seems
>>>>>> to be _too_ busy, and a bunch of new user traffic coming into
>>>>>> the project might be difficult to handle, and therefore
>>>>>> contribute to the already fairly large pile up of un-addressed
>>>>>> issues (we need help reviewing, commenting, etc as a pre-review
>>>>>> to help committers, and this is a great way to move toward
>>>>>> becoming a committer!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, we should probably wait for a couple of months for the
>>>>>> branch to stabilize and get patched up with fixes before we do a
>>>>>> major binary release on it and call it a real release, even a
>>>>>> beta quality one. We could do a binary release immediately and
>>>>>> flag it as beta or something... but unless someone wants to
>>>>>> invest in testing before the branch, the testing will only be
>>>>>> done through usage of the release branch after it exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> I think that we have to make a plan.
>>>>>>> What I think should be done before/for the release is at least:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) fix or resolve at least the critical bugs: https://
>>>>>>> issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
>>>>>>> reset=true&pid=12310500&priority=2&resolution=-1
>>>>>>> 2) of course, prepare the distribution as described here:
>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/1wE
>>>>>>> 3) it would be nice to add a new ROOT index page to list all
>>>>>>> the available applications (including the specialpurpose ones),
>>>>>>> give some basic information about OFBiz (similar to the ones in
>>>>>>> the Webtools main page, that I'd like to remove from there)
>>>>>>> 4) prepare a good press release
>>>>>>> 5) update the site's main page to announce it and update the
>>>>>>> download page
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>> What are the plans for doing the next OFBIZ release?
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>              
>>    
>
>  

[David E Jones]

Maybe this question can help get this discussion flowing:

For everyone who is interested in seeing this release happen, what  
result do you want to see from the release?

There may be other questions that are important, but if we could get  
some feedback on this one, that would help with something more than  
"whenever we want to" for the planning side of this.

-David


On Apr 16, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Si Chen wrote:

> Don't you have a 35-hour work week limit in France?
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> XP advise to work no more than 40 hours a week. Realist ?
>>
>> I hope to do it one day :o)
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>> So far my solicitations for opinions on this have yielded
>>> approximately 0 responses. That being the case, it will happen  
>>> when I
>>> or someone gets interested enough in it to do the branch.
>>>
>>> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include
>>> whatever it includes. No specific features have been listed for
>>> implementation before the branch. No specific bugs have been listed
>>> for fixing before the branch.
>>>
>>> For my part I won't be getting aggressive on this until late May or
>>> early June. I simply don't have the time (eighty hour work weeks,
>>> plus tax season, plus I'm getting married in three weeks and the  
>>> week
>>> after is JavaOne...). So yeah, the timing is just a tad  
>>> inconvenient.
>>>
>>> Still, if any one of the PMC members wants to drive this, I'll
>>> certainly support it in spirit and in effort where I can.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So what are the plans right now for starting a release?
>>>>
>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is that document for OFBiz:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
>>>>>
>>>>> It hasn't been changed in a while, and it is clear about the
>>>>> preliminary nature of an initial release based on a release
>>>>> branch, but there is no real name for it yet. I guess my thought
>>>>> was really in two parts: the fact that the initial release isn't a
>>>>> big deal and shouldn't have press/marketing activity around it,
>>>>> and that we need to come up with a name or a way of denoting the
>>>>> preliminary nature of the initial release from the branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general the nature of OFBiz and therefore the release process
>>>>> is somewhat different from more infrastructure oriented projects,
>>>>> even those at the ASF, so how this all works out over time is
>>>>> still up in the air and what we have in the Release Plan is just
>>>>> our best guess and effort based on current understanding of
>>>>> limitations, resources, motivations of community participants,  
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Raj Saini wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> One way to go about release is how other Open Source projects
>>>>>> specially ASF projects do the releases. Standard generally these
>>>>>> projects follow are Milestones (e.g. M1, M2,...), Release
>>>>>> Candidates (RC1, RC2,...) and final release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geronimo has this document (http://geronimo.apache.org/project-
>>>>>> policies.html) explaining their release process in detail.
>>>>>> Similar to this will be useful for Ofbiz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Raj
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a good list, though we can probably drop off anything
>>>>>>> related to a marketing concern for now, like preparing a press
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At this point the developer/committer community in OFBiz seems
>>>>>>> to be _too_ busy, and a bunch of new user traffic coming into
>>>>>>> the project might be difficult to handle, and therefore
>>>>>>> contribute to the already fairly large pile up of un-addressed
>>>>>>> issues (we need help reviewing, commenting, etc as a pre-review
>>>>>>> to help committers, and this is a great way to move toward
>>>>>>> becoming a committer!).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, we should probably wait for a couple of months for the
>>>>>>> branch to stabilize and get patched up with fixes before we do a
>>>>>>> major binary release on it and call it a real release, even a
>>>>>>> beta quality one. We could do a binary release immediately and
>>>>>>> flag it as beta or something... but unless someone wants to
>>>>>>> invest in testing before the branch, the testing will only be
>>>>>>> done through usage of the release branch after it exists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that we have to make a plan.
>>>>>>>> What I think should be done before/for the release is at least:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) fix or resolve at least the critical bugs: https://
>>>>>>>> issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
>>>>>>>> reset=true&pid=12310500&priority=2&resolution=-1
>>>>>>>> 2) of course, prepare the distribution as described here:
>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/1wE
>>>>>>>> 3) it would be nice to add a new ROOT index page to list all
>>>>>>>> the available applications (including the specialpurpose ones),
>>>>>>>> give some basic information about OFBiz (similar to the ones in
>>>>>>>> the Webtools main page, that I'd like to remove from there)
>>>>>>>> 4) prepare a good press release
>>>>>>>> 5) update the site's main page to announce it and update the
>>>>>>>> download page
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What are the plans for doing the next OFBIZ release?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Yes, and I even experienced it as an employee 7 years ago.

Freelance Si, freelance ... Sometimes I regret, but after all I prefer
my freedom !

Nevertheless, I'm thinking more an more about this advise...

Also brain needs some rest from time to time, else things begin to be
scrambled, depression is near. Without speaking of back pain... RSIs and
such...

Vacation ? France is a nice place for that ;o)

Jacques

> Don't you have a 35-hour work week limit in France?
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > XP advise to work no more than 40 hours a week. Realist ?
> >
> > I hope to do it one day :o)
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> >> So far my solicitations for opinions on this have yielded
> >> approximately 0 responses. That being the case, it will happen when

I

> >> or someone gets interested enough in it to do the branch.
> >>
> >> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include
> >> whatever it includes. No specific features have been listed for
> >> implementation before the branch. No specific bugs have been listed
> >> for fixing before the branch.
> >>
> >> For my part I won't be getting aggressive on this until late May or
> >> early June. I simply don't have the time (eighty hour work weeks,
> >> plus tax season, plus I'm getting married in three weeks and the

week
> >> after is JavaOne...). So yeah, the timing is just a tad
inconvenient.

> >>
> >> Still, if any one of the PMC members wants to drive this, I'll
> >> certainly support it in spirit and in effort where I can.
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 16, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Si Chen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> So what are the plans right now for starting a release?
> >>>
> >>> David E. Jones wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Here is that document for OFBiz:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
> >>>>
> >>>> It hasn't been changed in a while, and it is clear about the
> >>>> preliminary nature of an initial release based on a release
> >>>> branch, but there is no real name for it yet. I guess my thought
> >>>> was really in two parts: the fact that the initial release isn't

a

> >>>> big deal and shouldn't have press/marketing activity around it,
> >>>> and that we need to come up with a name or a way of denoting the
> >>>> preliminary nature of the initial release from the branch.
> >>>>
> >>>> In general the nature of OFBiz and therefore the release process
> >>>> is somewhat different from more infrastructure oriented projects,
> >>>> even those at the ASF, so how this all works out over time is
> >>>> still up in the air and what we have in the Release Plan is just
> >>>> our best guess and effort based on current understanding of
> >>>> limitations, resources, motivations of community participants,

etc.

> >>>>
> >>>> -David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Raj Saini wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> One way to go about release is how other Open Source projects
> >>>>> specially ASF projects do the releases. Standard generally these
> >>>>> projects follow are Milestones (e.g. M1, M2,...), Release
> >>>>> Candidates (RC1, RC2,...) and final release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Geronimo has this document (http://geronimo.apache.org/project-
> >>>>> policies.html) explaining their release process in detail.
> >>>>> Similar to this will be useful for Ofbiz.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Raj
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This is a good list, though we can probably drop off anything
> >>>>>> related to a marketing concern for now, like preparing a press
> >>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At this point the developer/committer community in OFBiz seems
> >>>>>> to be _too_ busy, and a bunch of new user traffic coming into
> >>>>>> the project might be difficult to handle, and therefore
> >>>>>> contribute to the already fairly large pile up of un-addressed
> >>>>>> issues (we need help reviewing, commenting, etc as a pre-review
> >>>>>> to help committers, and this is a great way to move toward
> >>>>>> becoming a committer!).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, we should probably wait for a couple of months for the
> >>>>>> branch to stabilize and get patched up with fixes before we do

a

> >>>>>> major binary release on it and call it a real release, even a
> >>>>>> beta quality one. We could do a binary release immediately and
> >>>>>> flag it as beta or something... but unless someone wants to
> >>>>>> invest in testing before the branch, the testing will only be
> >>>>>> done through usage of the release branch after it exists.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -David
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think that we have to make a plan.
> >>>>>>> What I think should be done before/for the release is at

least:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1) fix or resolve at least the critical bugs: https://
> >>>>>>> issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
> >>>>>>> reset=true&pid=12310500&priority=2&resolution=-1
> >>>>>>> 2) of course, prepare the distribution as described here:
> >>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/1wE
> >>>>>>> 3) it would be nice to add a new ROOT index page to list all
> >>>>>>> the available applications (including the specialpurpose
ones),
> >>>>>>> give some basic information about OFBiz (similar to the ones
in

> >>>>>>> the Webtools main page, that I'd like to remove from there)
> >>>>>>> 4) prepare a good press release
> >>>>>>> 5) update the site's main page to announce it and update the
> >>>>>>> download page
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Si Chen wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What are the plans for doing the next OFBIZ release?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Tim Ruppert]

Fresh build will not build from ant at the moment:

classes:
     [javac] Compiling 4 source files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/
framework/base/build/classes/start
      [copy] Copying 7 files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/
base/build/classes/start
     [javac] Compiling 93 source files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/
framework/base/build/classes/base
     [javac] [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/base/src/base/org/
ofbiz/base/util/HttpClient.java:359: cannot find symbol
     [javac] symbol  : method openConnection
(java.net.URL,int,java.lang.String)
     [javac] location: class org.ofbiz.base.util.URLConnector
     [javac]             con = URLConnector.openConnection
(requestUrl, timeout, clientCertAlias);
     [javac]                               ^
     [javac] 1 error

BUILD FAILED
[OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/build.xml:106: The following error  
occurred while executing this line:
[OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/build.xml:133: The following  
error occurred while executing this line:
[OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/base/build.xml:94: Compile  
failed; see the compiler error output for details.

Total time: 11 seconds


Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

[Ashish Vijaywargiya-3]

Tim,

In the recent update Andy has changed the URLConnector.openConnection()
method and increased its one parameter.
I have added the fourth parameter (i.e  0) in the
URLConnector.openConnection() method to resolve the problem.
May be some other integer value should be kept standard in ofbiz.

Let me know how does it goes.


On 4/17/07, Tim Ruppert <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Fresh build will not build from ant at the moment:
>
> classes:
>      [javac] Compiling 4 source files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/
> framework/base/build/classes/start
>       [copy] Copying 7 files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/
> base/build/classes/start
>      [javac] Compiling 93 source files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/
> framework/base/build/classes/base
>      [javac] [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/base/src/base/org/
> ofbiz/base/util/HttpClient.java:359: cannot find symbol
>      [javac] symbol  : method openConnection
> (java.net.URL,int,java.lang.String)
>      [javac] location: class org.ofbiz.base.util.URLConnector
>      [javac]             con = URLConnector.openConnection
> (requestUrl, timeout, clientCertAlias);
>      [javac]                               ^
>      [javac] 1 error
>
> BUILD FAILED
> [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/build.xml:106: The following error
> occurred while executing this line:
> [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/build.xml:133: The following
> error occurred while executing this line:
> [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/base/build.xml:94: Compile
> failed; see the compiler error output for details.
>
> Total time: 11 seconds
>
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
>
>
>
>

--
Thanks & Regards
Ashish Vijaywargiya
Aditisoft Technology Laboratory
http://www.adititechlabs.com
[hidden email]
__________________________________
Office          :  509.855.4113
Cellphone    :  [phone]

[Tim Ruppert]

Thanks Ashish, I'll get this updated immediately.

Cheers,

Tim

--

Tim Ruppert

HotWax Media

http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594

f:801.649.6595

On Apr 16, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:

Tim,

In the recent update Andy has changed the URLConnector.openConnection()

method and increased its one parameter.

I have added the fourth parameter (i.e  0) in the

URLConnector.openConnection() method to resolve the problem.

May be some other integer value should be kept standard in ofbiz.

Let me know how does it goes.

On 4/17/07, Tim Ruppert <[hidden email]> wrote:

Fresh build will not build from ant at the moment:

classes:

     [javac] Compiling 4 source files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/

framework/base/build/classes/start

      [copy] Copying 7 files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/

base/build/classes/start

     [javac] Compiling 93 source files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/

framework/base/build/classes/base

     [javac] [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/base/src/base/org/

ofbiz/base/util/HttpClient.java:359: cannot find symbol

     [javac] symbol  : method openConnection

(java.net.URL,int,java.lang.String)

     [javac] location: class org.ofbiz.base.util.URLConnector

     [javac]             con = URLConnector.openConnection

(requestUrl, timeout, clientCertAlias);

     [javac]                               ^

     [javac] 1 error

BUILD FAILED

[OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/build.xml:106: The following error

occurred while executing this line:

[OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/build.xml:133: The following

error occurred while executing this line:

[OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/base/build.xml:94: Compile

failed; see the compiler error output for details.

Total time: 11 seconds

Cheers,

Tim

--

Tim Ruppert

HotWax Media

http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594

f:801.649.6595

-- 

Thanks & Regards

Ashish Vijaywargiya

Aditisoft Technology Laboratory

http://www.adititechlabs.com

[hidden email]

__________________________________

Office          :  509.855.4113

Cellphone    :  [phone]

[Ashish Vijaywargiya-3]

Change on Line # 359 of HttpClient.java
con = URLConnector.openConnection(requestUrl, timeout, clientCertAlias,0);


On 4/17/07, Ashish Vijaywargiya <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> Tim,
>
> In the recent update Andy has changed the URLConnector.openConnection()
> method and increased its one parameter.
> I have added the fourth parameter (i.e  0) in the
> URLConnector.openConnection() method to resolve the problem.
> May be some other integer value should be kept standard in ofbiz.
>
> Let me know how does it goes.
>
>
> On 4/17/07, Tim Ruppert < [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Fresh build will not build from ant at the moment:
> >
> > classes:
> >      [javac] Compiling 4 source files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/
> > framework/base/build/classes/start
> >       [copy] Copying 7 files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/
> > base/build/classes/start
> >      [javac] Compiling 93 source files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/
> > framework/base/build/classes/base
> >      [javac] [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/base/src/base/org/
> > ofbiz/base/util/HttpClient.java:359: cannot find symbol
> >      [javac] symbol  : method openConnection
> > (java.net.URL,int,java.lang.String)
> >      [javac] location: class org.ofbiz.base.util.URLConnector
> >      [javac]             con = URLConnector.openConnection
> > (requestUrl, timeout, clientCertAlias);
> >      [javac]                               ^
> >      [javac] 1 error
> >
> > BUILD FAILED
> > [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/build.xml:106: The following error
> > occurred while executing this line:
> > [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/build.xml:133: The following
> > error occurred while executing this line:
> > [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/base/build.xml:94: Compile
> > failed; see the compiler error output for details.
> >
> > Total time: 11 seconds
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tim
> > --
> > Tim Ruppert
> > HotWax Media
> > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >
> > o:801.649.6594
> > f:801.649.6595
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Ashish Vijaywargiya
> Aditisoft Technology Laboratory
> http://www.adititechlabs.com
> [hidden email]
> __________________________________
> Office          :  509.855.4113
> Cellphone    :  [phone]

--
Thanks & Regards
Ashish Vijaywargiya
Aditisoft Technology Laboratory
http://www.adititechlabs.com
[hidden email]
__________________________________
Office          :  509.855.4113
Cellphone    :  [phone]

[David E Jones]

I committed a temporary fix in rev 529492. Hopefully this is an  
adequate fix.

-David


On Apr 16, 2007, at 10:50 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote:

> Thanks Ashish, I'll get this updated immediately.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
>
> On Apr 16, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>
>> Tim,
>>
>> In the recent update Andy has changed the  
>> URLConnector.openConnection()
>> method and increased its one parameter.
>> I have added the fourth parameter (i.e  0) in the
>> URLConnector.openConnection() method to resolve the problem.
>> May be some other integer value should be kept standard in ofbiz.
>>
>> Let me know how does it goes.
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/07, Tim Ruppert <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fresh build will not build from ant at the moment:
>>>
>>> classes:
>>>      [javac] Compiling 4 source files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-
>>> trunk/
>>> framework/base/build/classes/start
>>>       [copy] Copying 7 files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/
>>> framework/
>>> base/build/classes/start
>>>      [javac] Compiling 93 source files to [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-
>>> trunk/
>>> framework/base/build/classes/base
>>>      [javac] [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/base/src/base/
>>> org/
>>> ofbiz/base/util/HttpClient.java:359: cannot find symbol
>>>      [javac] symbol  : method openConnection
>>> (java.net.URL,int,java.lang.String)
>>>      [javac] location: class org.ofbiz.base.util.URLConnector
>>>      [javac]             con = URLConnector.openConnection
>>> (requestUrl, timeout, clientCertAlias);
>>>      [javac]                               ^
>>>      [javac] 1 error
>>>
>>> BUILD FAILED
>>> [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/build.xml:106: The following error
>>> occurred while executing this line:
>>> [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/build.xml:133: The following
>>> error occurred while executing this line:
>>> [OFBIZ_SANDBOX]/ofbiz-trunk/framework/base/build.xml:94: Compile
>>> failed; see the compiler error output for details.
>>>
>>> Total time: 11 seconds
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tim
>>> --
>>> Tim Ruppert
>>> HotWax Media
>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>
>>> o:801.649.6594
>>> f:801.649.6595
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks & Regards
>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>> Aditisoft Technology Laboratory
>> http://www.adititechlabs.com
>> [hidden email]
>> __________________________________
>> Office          :  509.855.4113
>> Cellphone    :  [phone]
>

[BJ Freeman]

David:
One thing I learned in projects, is do a sky blue then cut down to the
practical.
Practical here, IMHO, is to get a freeze point (branch), Make some
milestones to fix the bugs.
If we keep going on features, there never will be release, IMHO.


David E. Jones sent the following on 4/16/2007 1:59 PM:

>
> Maybe this question can help get this discussion flowing:
>
> For everyone who is interested in seeing this release happen, what
> result do you want to see from the release?
>
> There may be other questions that are important, but if we could get
> some feedback on this one, that would help with something more than
> "whenever we want to" for the planning side of this.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 16, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>
>> Don't you have a 35-hour work week limit in France?
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> XP advise to work no more than 40 hours a week. Realist ?
>>>
>>> I hope to do it one day :o)
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>> So far my solicitations for opinions on this have yielded
>>>> approximately 0 responses. That being the case, it will happen when I
>>>> or someone gets interested enough in it to do the branch.
>>>>
>>>> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include
>>>> whatever it includes. No specific features have been listed for
>>>> implementation before the branch. No specific bugs have been listed
>>>> for fixing before the branch.
>>>>
>>>> For my part I won't be getting aggressive on this until late May or
>>>> early June. I simply don't have the time (eighty hour work weeks,
>>>> plus tax season, plus I'm getting married in three weeks and the week
>>>> after is JavaOne...). So yeah, the timing is just a tad inconvenient.
>>>>
>>>> Still, if any one of the PMC members wants to drive this, I'll
>>>> certainly support it in spirit and in effort where I can.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 16, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So what are the plans right now for starting a release?
>>>>>
>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is that document for OFBiz:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It hasn't been changed in a while, and it is clear about the
>>>>>> preliminary nature of an initial release based on a release
>>>>>> branch, but there is no real name for it yet. I guess my thought
>>>>>> was really in two parts: the fact that the initial release isn't a
>>>>>> big deal and shouldn't have press/marketing activity around it,
>>>>>> and that we need to come up with a name or a way of denoting the
>>>>>> preliminary nature of the initial release from the branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general the nature of OFBiz and therefore the release process
>>>>>> is somewhat different from more infrastructure oriented projects,
>>>>>> even those at the ASF, so how this all works out over time is
>>>>>> still up in the air and what we have in the Release Plan is just
>>>>>> our best guess and effort based on current understanding of
>>>>>> limitations, resources, motivations of community participants, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Raj Saini wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One way to go about release is how other Open Source projects
>>>>>>> specially ASF projects do the releases. Standard generally these
>>>>>>> projects follow are Milestones (e.g. M1, M2,...), Release
>>>>>>> Candidates (RC1, RC2,...) and final release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Geronimo has this document (http://geronimo.apache.org/project-
>>>>>>> policies.html) explaining their release process in detail.
>>>>>>> Similar to this will be useful for Ofbiz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Raj
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a good list, though we can probably drop off anything
>>>>>>>> related to a marketing concern for now, like preparing a press
>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At this point the developer/committer community in OFBiz seems
>>>>>>>> to be _too_ busy, and a bunch of new user traffic coming into
>>>>>>>> the project might be difficult to handle, and therefore
>>>>>>>> contribute to the already fairly large pile up of un-addressed
>>>>>>>> issues (we need help reviewing, commenting, etc as a pre-review
>>>>>>>> to help committers, and this is a great way to move toward
>>>>>>>> becoming a committer!).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, we should probably wait for a couple of months for the
>>>>>>>> branch to stabilize and get patched up with fixes before we do a
>>>>>>>> major binary release on it and call it a real release, even a
>>>>>>>> beta quality one. We could do a binary release immediately and
>>>>>>>> flag it as beta or something... but unless someone wants to
>>>>>>>> invest in testing before the branch, the testing will only be
>>>>>>>> done through usage of the release branch after it exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that we have to make a plan.
>>>>>>>>> What I think should be done before/for the release is at least:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) fix or resolve at least the critical bugs: https://
>>>>>>>>> issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
>>>>>>>>> reset=true&pid=12310500&priority=2&resolution=-1
>>>>>>>>> 2) of course, prepare the distribution as described here:
>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/1wE
>>>>>>>>> 3) it would be nice to add a new ROOT index page to list all
>>>>>>>>> the available applications (including the specialpurpose ones),
>>>>>>>>> give some basic information about OFBiz (similar to the ones in
>>>>>>>>> the Webtools main page, that I'd like to remove from there)
>>>>>>>>> 4) prepare a good press release
>>>>>>>>> 5) update the site's main page to announce it and update the
>>>>>>>>> download page
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What are the plans for doing the next OFBIZ release?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[David E Jones]

On Apr 17, 2007, at 6:19 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:

> If we keep going on features, there never will be release, IMHO.

Feature development and release maintenance are totally different  
things and can be done, and we plan to do them, at the same time.

The plan for this is described here:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan

-David

[Shi Yusen]

+1 for creating a release branch.

> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include  
> whatever it includes.
As an training course, I have arranged a man to test current HEAD in
different enviroments.

I think the release branch can be created now.

Regards,

Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.

[Si Chen-2]

The SVN right now is in reasonably good shape in my opinion -- it's been
more stable in the past, but there's also been a lot of times when it's
a lot less stable.  I think we need to get the framework to a stable
point and resolve any critical applications bugs, and then it should be
a pretty good release.

Having said that, is it better to create a release branch now, or wait a
little bit?  This would depend on everybody's development plans.  I
notice David and Andy are doing a lot of things in the framework and
base methods and that there have been some bugs that are being fixed.  
Could the next few days, week, or two weeks be spent primarily
addressing these issues without a lot of new features being committed?  
If so, then it'd be better to wait until then.  Otherwise, let's just
make the release branch before a whole bunch of new but not necessarily
critical features or refactorings arrive.



Shi Yusen wrote:

> +1 for creating a release branch.
>
>  
>> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include  
>> whatever it includes.
>>    
> As an training course, I have arranged a man to test current HEAD in
> different enviroments.
>
> I think the release branch can be created now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
>
>
>  

[Adrian Crum]

The sooner the better, in my opinion. We could keep on discussing it, but that
would just delay it more. As far as I know, no one has OBJECTED to it, so why
not just get the ball rolling?

We can still fix the bugs after the branch.

Si Chen wrote:

> The SVN right now is in reasonably good shape in my opinion -- it's been
> more stable in the past, but there's also been a lot of times when it's
> a lot less stable.  I think we need to get the framework to a stable
> point and resolve any critical applications bugs, and then it should be
> a pretty good release.
>
> Having said that, is it better to create a release branch now, or wait a
> little bit?  This would depend on everybody's development plans.  I
> notice David and Andy are doing a lot of things in the framework and
> base methods and that there have been some bugs that are being fixed.  
> Could the next few days, week, or two weeks be spent primarily
> addressing these issues without a lot of new features being committed?  
> If so, then it'd be better to wait until then.  Otherwise, let's just
> make the release branch before a whole bunch of new but not necessarily
> critical features or refactorings arrive.
>
>
>
> Shi Yusen wrote:
>
>> +1 for creating a release branch.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include  
>>> whatever it includes.
>>>    
>>
>> As an training course, I have arranged a man to test current HEAD in
>> different enviroments.
>>
>> I think the release branch can be created now.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
>>
>>
>>  
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato]

I agree.

Adrian Crum wrote:

> The sooner the better, in my opinion. We could keep on discussing it,
> but that would just delay it more. As far as I know, no one has OBJECTED
> to it, so why not just get the ball rolling?
>
> We can still fix the bugs after the branch.
>
> Si Chen wrote:
>> The SVN right now is in reasonably good shape in my opinion -- it's
>> been more stable in the past, but there's also been a lot of times
>> when it's a lot less stable.  I think we need to get the framework to
>> a stable point and resolve any critical applications bugs, and then it
>> should be a pretty good release.
>>
>> Having said that, is it better to create a release branch now, or wait
>> a little bit?  This would depend on everybody's development plans.  I
>> notice David and Andy are doing a lot of things in the framework and
>> base methods and that there have been some bugs that are being fixed.  
>> Could the next few days, week, or two weeks be spent primarily
>> addressing these issues without a lot of new features being
>> committed?  If so, then it'd be better to wait until then.  Otherwise,
>> let's just make the release branch before a whole bunch of new but not
>> necessarily critical features or refactorings arrive.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shi Yusen wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for creating a release branch.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include  
>>>> whatever it includes.
>>>>    
>>>
>>> As an training course, I have arranged a man to test current HEAD in
>>> different enviroments.
>>>
>>> I think the release branch can be created now.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>
>>

[jonwimp]

What about simply forking a release branch now, and then we work on stabilizing and debugging THAT
branch?

As and when new fixes go into the trunk, we can merge those fixes into the branch. Ideally, the
release branch will not take in new features from the trunk, but only fixes to bring the branch
towards stability for final release. I'd recommend using Release Candidates.

I'd be the first one to offer to test the release branch in the effort to bring it to release
status. If there _is_ a release branch, I'll be basing my work on that branch rather than the
trunk, anyway.

If no one else is familiar with this branching strategy, I may be willing to take on the admin
work for this. Just let me know when my deadlines and what my deliverables will be.

Jonathon

Si Chen wrote:

> The SVN right now is in reasonably good shape in my opinion -- it's been
> more stable in the past, but there's also been a lot of times when it's
> a lot less stable.  I think we need to get the framework to a stable
> point and resolve any critical applications bugs, and then it should be
> a pretty good release.
>
> Having said that, is it better to create a release branch now, or wait a
> little bit?  This would depend on everybody's development plans.  I
> notice David and Andy are doing a lot of things in the framework and
> base methods and that there have been some bugs that are being fixed.  
> Could the next few days, week, or two weeks be spent primarily
> addressing these issues without a lot of new features being committed?  
> If so, then it'd be better to wait until then.  Otherwise, let's just
> make the release branch before a whole bunch of new but not necessarily
> critical features or refactorings arrive.
>
>
>
> Shi Yusen wrote:
>> +1 for creating a release branch.
>>
>>  
>>> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include  
>>> whatever it includes.
>>>    
>> As an training course, I have arranged a man to test current HEAD in
>> different enviroments.
>>
>> I think the release branch can be created now.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
>>
>>
>>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.0/763 - Release Date: 4/16/2007 5:53 PM

[David E Jones]

This is a very relevant topic, but it might be helpful to in terms of  
the existing Release Plan:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan

I don't see people referring to this much or talking in terms of  
"this is the plan, but maybe we should do it X way because of Y". Is  
that because the Release Plan is just total crap, or maybe it's too  
long and not worth reading?

But yeah, these things are addressed in the Release Plan.

-David


On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> What about simply forking a release branch now, and then we work on  
> stabilizing and debugging THAT branch?
>
> As and when new fixes go into the trunk, we can merge those fixes  
> into the branch. Ideally, the release branch will not take in new  
> features from the trunk, but only fixes to bring the branch towards  
> stability for final release. I'd recommend using Release Candidates.
>
> I'd be the first one to offer to test the release branch in the  
> effort to bring it to release status. If there _is_ a release  
> branch, I'll be basing my work on that branch rather than the  
> trunk, anyway.
>
> If no one else is familiar with this branching strategy, I may be  
> willing to take on the admin work for this. Just let me know when  
> my deadlines and what my deliverables will be.
>
> Jonathon
>
> Si Chen wrote:
>> The SVN right now is in reasonably good shape in my opinion --  
>> it's been more stable in the past, but there's also been a lot of  
>> times when it's a lot less stable.  I think we need to get the  
>> framework to a stable point and resolve any critical applications  
>> bugs, and then it should be a pretty good release.
>> Having said that, is it better to create a release branch now, or  
>> wait a little bit?  This would depend on everybody's development  
>> plans.  I notice David and Andy are doing a lot of things in the  
>> framework and base methods and that there have been some bugs that  
>> are being fixed.  Could the next few days, week, or two weeks be  
>> spent primarily addressing these issues without a lot of new  
>> features being committed?  If so, then it'd be better to wait  
>> until then.  Otherwise, let's just make the release branch before  
>> a whole bunch of new but not necessarily critical features or  
>> refactorings arrive.
>> Shi Yusen wrote:
>>> +1 for creating a release branch.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include  
>>>> whatever it includes.
>>>>
>>> As an training course, I have arranged a man to test current HEAD in
>>> different enviroments.
>>>
>>> I think the release branch can be created now.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.0/763 - Release Date:  
>> 4/16/2007 5:53 PM
>

[BJ Freeman]

I have read the release plan, however it has been there for a while and
we can't seem to get to the next step of implementing.
I am guessing everyone is saying lets get a move on.
Action

David E. Jones sent the following on 4/17/2007 8:55 AM:

>
> This is a very relevant topic, but it might be helpful to in terms of
> the existing Release Plan:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
>
> I don't see people referring to this much or talking in terms of "this
> is the plan, but maybe we should do it X way because of Y". Is that
> because the Release Plan is just total crap, or maybe it's too long and
> not worth reading?
>
> But yeah, these things are addressed in the Release Plan.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>
>> What about simply forking a release branch now, and then we work on
>> stabilizing and debugging THAT branch?
>>
>> As and when new fixes go into the trunk, we can merge those fixes into
>> the branch. Ideally, the release branch will not take in new features
>> from the trunk, but only fixes to bring the branch towards stability
>> for final release. I'd recommend using Release Candidates.
>>
>> I'd be the first one to offer to test the release branch in the effort
>> to bring it to release status. If there _is_ a release branch, I'll be
>> basing my work on that branch rather than the trunk, anyway.
>>
>> If no one else is familiar with this branching strategy, I may be
>> willing to take on the admin work for this. Just let me know when my
>> deadlines and what my deliverables will be.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Si Chen wrote:
>>> The SVN right now is in reasonably good shape in my opinion -- it's
>>> been more stable in the past, but there's also been a lot of times
>>> when it's a lot less stable.  I think we need to get the framework to
>>> a stable point and resolve any critical applications bugs, and then
>>> it should be a pretty good release.
>>> Having said that, is it better to create a release branch now, or
>>> wait a little bit?  This would depend on everybody's development
>>> plans.  I notice David and Andy are doing a lot of things in the
>>> framework and base methods and that there have been some bugs that
>>> are being fixed.  Could the next few days, week, or two weeks be
>>> spent primarily addressing these issues without a lot of new features
>>> being committed?  If so, then it'd be better to wait until then.
>>> Otherwise, let's just make the release branch before a whole bunch of
>>> new but not necessarily critical features or refactorings arrive.
>>> Shi Yusen wrote:
>>>> +1 for creating a release branch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include
>>>>> whatever it includes.
>>>>>
>>>> As an training course, I have arranged a man to test current HEAD in
>>>> different enviroments.
>>>>
>>>> I think the release branch can be created now.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.0/763 - Release Date:
>>> 4/16/2007 5:53 PM
>>
>

[David E Jones]

I'm just concerned because most of the discussion seems to be related  
to things that are already in the Release Plan.

So, maybe we need a thread for a RFC on the Release Plan first?

The big point of the release plan that everyone seems to agree on is,  
let's just do the branch! The point of the plan is to handle it not  
being perfect on day 1, etc.

-David


On Apr 17, 2007, at 11:58 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:

> I have read the release plan, however it has been there for a while  
> and
> we can't seem to get to the next step of implementing.
> I am guessing everyone is saying lets get a move on.
> Action
>
> David E. Jones sent the following on 4/17/2007 8:55 AM:
>>
>> This is a very relevant topic, but it might be helpful to in terms of
>> the existing Release Plan:
>>
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
>>
>> I don't see people referring to this much or talking in terms of  
>> "this
>> is the plan, but maybe we should do it X way because of Y". Is that
>> because the Release Plan is just total crap, or maybe it's too  
>> long and
>> not worth reading?
>>
>> But yeah, these things are addressed in the Release Plan.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>
>>> What about simply forking a release branch now, and then we work on
>>> stabilizing and debugging THAT branch?
>>>
>>> As and when new fixes go into the trunk, we can merge those fixes  
>>> into
>>> the branch. Ideally, the release branch will not take in new  
>>> features
>>> from the trunk, but only fixes to bring the branch towards stability
>>> for final release. I'd recommend using Release Candidates.
>>>
>>> I'd be the first one to offer to test the release branch in the  
>>> effort
>>> to bring it to release status. If there _is_ a release branch,  
>>> I'll be
>>> basing my work on that branch rather than the trunk, anyway.
>>>
>>> If no one else is familiar with this branching strategy, I may be
>>> willing to take on the admin work for this. Just let me know when my
>>> deadlines and what my deliverables will be.
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>> The SVN right now is in reasonably good shape in my opinion -- it's
>>>> been more stable in the past, but there's also been a lot of times
>>>> when it's a lot less stable.  I think we need to get the  
>>>> framework to
>>>> a stable point and resolve any critical applications bugs, and then
>>>> it should be a pretty good release.
>>>> Having said that, is it better to create a release branch now, or
>>>> wait a little bit?  This would depend on everybody's development
>>>> plans.  I notice David and Andy are doing a lot of things in the
>>>> framework and base methods and that there have been some bugs that
>>>> are being fixed.  Could the next few days, week, or two weeks be
>>>> spent primarily addressing these issues without a lot of new  
>>>> features
>>>> being committed?  If so, then it'd be better to wait until then.
>>>> Otherwise, let's just make the release branch before a whole  
>>>> bunch of
>>>> new but not necessarily critical features or refactorings arrive.
>>>> Shi Yusen wrote:
>>>>> +1 for creating a release branch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include
>>>>>> whatever it includes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As an training course, I have arranged a man to test current  
>>>>> HEAD in
>>>>> different enviroments.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the release branch can be created now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -----
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.0/763 - Release Date:
>>>> 4/16/2007 5:53 PM
>>>
>>

[David E Jones]

Should we just set a date so everyone knows it's coming, and then  
just go for it?

How about this Friday?

-David


On Apr 17, 2007, at 11:05 AM, David E. Jones wrote:

>
> I'm just concerned because most of the discussion seems to be  
> related to things that are already in the Release Plan.
>
> So, maybe we need a thread for a RFC on the Release Plan first?
>
> The big point of the release plan that everyone seems to agree on  
> is, let's just do the branch! The point of the plan is to handle it  
> not being perfect on day 1, etc.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2007, at 11:58 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
>> I have read the release plan, however it has been there for a  
>> while and
>> we can't seem to get to the next step of implementing.
>> I am guessing everyone is saying lets get a move on.
>> Action
>>
>> David E. Jones sent the following on 4/17/2007 8:55 AM:
>>>
>>> This is a very relevant topic, but it might be helpful to in  
>>> terms of
>>> the existing Release Plan:
>>>
>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan
>>>
>>> I don't see people referring to this much or talking in terms of  
>>> "this
>>> is the plan, but maybe we should do it X way because of Y". Is that
>>> because the Release Plan is just total crap, or maybe it's too  
>>> long and
>>> not worth reading?
>>>
>>> But yeah, these things are addressed in the Release Plan.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>
>>>> What about simply forking a release branch now, and then we work on
>>>> stabilizing and debugging THAT branch?
>>>>
>>>> As and when new fixes go into the trunk, we can merge those  
>>>> fixes into
>>>> the branch. Ideally, the release branch will not take in new  
>>>> features
>>>> from the trunk, but only fixes to bring the branch towards  
>>>> stability
>>>> for final release. I'd recommend using Release Candidates.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be the first one to offer to test the release branch in the  
>>>> effort
>>>> to bring it to release status. If there _is_ a release branch,  
>>>> I'll be
>>>> basing my work on that branch rather than the trunk, anyway.
>>>>
>>>> If no one else is familiar with this branching strategy, I may be
>>>> willing to take on the admin work for this. Just let me know  
>>>> when my
>>>> deadlines and what my deliverables will be.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>>> The SVN right now is in reasonably good shape in my opinion --  
>>>>> it's
>>>>> been more stable in the past, but there's also been a lot of times
>>>>> when it's a lot less stable.  I think we need to get the  
>>>>> framework to
>>>>> a stable point and resolve any critical applications bugs, and  
>>>>> then
>>>>> it should be a pretty good release.
>>>>> Having said that, is it better to create a release branch now, or
>>>>> wait a little bit?  This would depend on everybody's development
>>>>> plans.  I notice David and Andy are doing a lot of things in the
>>>>> framework and base methods and that there have been some bugs that
>>>>> are being fixed.  Could the next few days, week, or two weeks be
>>>>> spent primarily addressing these issues without a lot of new  
>>>>> features
>>>>> being committed?  If so, then it'd be better to wait until then.
>>>>> Otherwise, let's just make the release branch before a whole  
>>>>> bunch of
>>>>> new but not necessarily critical features or refactorings arrive.
>>>>> Shi Yusen wrote:
>>>>>> +1 for creating a release branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, without responses the branch will basically just include
>>>>>>> whatever it includes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an training course, I have arranged a man to test current  
>>>>>> HEAD in
>>>>>> different enviroments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the release branch can be created now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ------
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.0/763 - Release Date:
>>>>> 4/16/2007 5:53 PM
>>>>
>>>
>