release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
Locked
1234
1234
release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
 
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
I'm only against breaking the rules of the branch for this one feature
enhancement. If the application doesn't work, then it's a fix though. So, I guess it goes back to whether or not this is a fix of a problem that was there or is it a feature enhancement? Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 On Nov 14, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > I'm not agiainst it, +1 > > Scott > > On 15/11/2007, Vince M. Clark <[hidden email]> wrote: >> +1 >> >> Vince Clark >> Global Era >> The Freedom of Open Source >> [hidden email] >> (303) 493-6723 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]> >> To: [hidden email] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:16:31 AM (GMT-0700) America/ >> Denver >> Subject: Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?) >> >> While technically it is not a bug fix, I believe it should go in >> anyway - since the release is >> intended to be widely deployed, and the problem your patch >> addresses might be a deal breaker for >> those who are considering deploying the release. >> >> +1 for including it. >> >> -Adrian >> >> Dan Shields wrote: >>> Thanks Jacques for helping get my patch for OFBIZ-1106 into OFBiz. >>> >>> Hello Devs, recently I participated with other developers to >>> devise a >>> fix for OFBIZ-1106. The patch I submitted is now in HEAD but >>> UNsurprisingly it has been held back from release4.0 because the >>> acceptance criteria, I am told, accepts only bug fixes. >>> >>> Some would agree that release4.0 was unusable for POS for the fact >>> that it echos the manager's and the user's password to the screen >>> for >>> all staff and customers to see. I don't know if any other developer >>> has tried to train non-computer people to use the POS application, >>> but >>> I have seen the genuine surprise on their faces when they saw their >>> own password appear on the screen as they typed. It should be >>> self-evident that this is undesirable behavior. My patch merely >>> replaces the characters on the screen with asterisks; it does so >>> in a >>> manner that respects existing APIs employed by the OFBiz POS >>> application, it is well-tested, cleanly applies to HEAD and >>> release4.0, and has been tested by other ofbiz developers as well. >>> >>> It seems that there is some uncertainty over whether this is in >>> fact a >>> bug fix or not. I am merely asking for additional support in >>> deciding: >>> "For the purposes of release4.0, is my patch for OFBIZ-1106 a bug >>> fix?" >>> >> |
smime.p7s (3K)
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
I'd prefer not to dilute the meaning of "bug". A bug is an existing feature that doesn't work as it was intended when written. Passwords in plain text would be a security issue, but since the fix for that issue is most likely a new feature rather than fixing an existing feature (I haven't looked at the code so I don't know if there is broken code that should do this, but it doesn't sound like it), then it is a new feature and not a bug. So, the question that started this thread is the most relevant: because it is a big concern, should we add this to the branch even though it is a new feature and not a bug fix? My opinion on that is let the users of the branch decide... I'm not really in a good position to express an opinion because I make a regular practice of pushing clients away from the branch and to the trunk so that new work we do for them (new stuff being most of what we do as a company) can be done in participation with the project. We could do a formal vote where only PMC votes are binding, but it might be more valuable to just get feedback from branch users and make a decision. Purely an administrative comment that. -David On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Michael Jensen wrote: > I agree with Tim. It's a security related bug fix. Displaying > passwords in plaintext on a screen is a bug. It is industry standard > practice to not show passwords on the screen (either by replacing > w/asterisks or not displaying characters at all.) > > Mike > > > > > Adrian Crum wrote: >> Tim, >> >> From my perspective, it would be like finding a security breach in >> the >> branch. Would we want to close the security breach? Of course! Are we >> adding a new feature by doing so? I guess some people would >> consider a >> closed security breach a "new feature" - but the people downloading >> and >> deploying the branch would consider it a bug fix. >> >> -Adrian >> >> Tim Ruppert wrote: >> >>> I'm only against breaking the rules of the branch for this one >>> feature enhancement. If the application doesn't work, then it's a >>> fix though. So, I guess it goes back to whether or not this is a >>> fix >>> of a problem that was there or is it a feature enhancement? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Tim >>> -- >>> Tim Ruppert >>> HotWax Media >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>> >>> o:801.649.6594 >>> f:801.649.6595 >>> >>> >>> On Nov 14, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not agiainst it, +1 >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 15/11/2007, Vince M. Clark <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Vince Clark >>>>> Global Era >>>>> The Freedom of Open Source >>>>> [hidden email] >>>>> (303) 493-6723 >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]> >>>>> To: [hidden email] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:16:31 AM (GMT-0700) America/ >>>>> Denver >>>>> Subject: Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?) >>>>> >>>>> While technically it is not a bug fix, I believe it should go in >>>>> anyway - since the release is >>>>> intended to be widely deployed, and the problem your patch >>>>> addresses might be a deal breaker for >>>>> those who are considering deploying the release. >>>>> >>>>> +1 for including it. >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> Dan Shields wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Jacques for helping get my patch for OFBIZ-1106 into >>>>>> OFBiz. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Devs, recently I participated with other developers to >>>>>> devise a >>>>>> fix for OFBIZ-1106. The patch I submitted is now in HEAD but >>>>>> UNsurprisingly it has been held back from release4.0 because the >>>>>> acceptance criteria, I am told, accepts only bug fixes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some would agree that release4.0 was unusable for POS for the >>>>>> fact >>>>>> that it echos the manager's and the user's password to the >>>>>> screen for >>>>>> all staff and customers to see. I don't know if any other >>>>>> developer >>>>>> has tried to train non-computer people to use the POS >>>>>> application, >>>>>> but >>>>>> I have seen the genuine surprise on their faces when they saw >>>>>> their >>>>>> own password appear on the screen as they typed. It should be >>>>>> self-evident that this is undesirable behavior. My patch merely >>>>>> replaces the characters on the screen with asterisks; it does >>>>>> so in a >>>>>> manner that respects existing APIs employed by the OFBiz POS >>>>>> application, it is well-tested, cleanly applies to HEAD and >>>>>> release4.0, and has been tested by other ofbiz developers as >>>>>> well. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems that there is some uncertainty over whether this is in >>>>>> fact a >>>>>> bug fix or not. I am merely asking for additional support in >>>>>> deciding: >>>>>> "For the purposes of release4.0, is my patch for OFBIZ-1106 a bug >>>>>> fix?" >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > -- > Millcreek Systems, Inc. > P.O. Box 9835 > Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 > Phone: 801.649.4903 > Skype: millcreeksys (http://millcreeksys.com/skype/) |
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
Administrator
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
In reply to this post by jonwimp
Here is the current release plan that explains everything related to this. It is certainly open to change. The best way to do that is probably to propose variations on the current plan and open discussion on them. Will be interesting however the conversation goes... (as Dan Shields mentioned, with some liberty in variation) -David On Nov 14, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > Ok, I'm just speaking from a business perspective here. Obviously, > from developer's perspective, it's good to put that enchancement > into release 4.0. I agree that this is not a fix, but an enhancement. > > First, it's cool to be able to tell clients that a new release > (after 4.0) fixes a problem with clear passwords being shown. So, > I'm for rolling that enhancement into the next release (say 4.1?). > Oh yeah, we do agree that upgrading along the 4.x family should > involve zero migration effort, right? > > That said, it should be obvious that my hope is to have release 4.0 > stabilized asap, and free up resources to package and roll out the > next release. If we're not gonna be fast and rapid about the release > timeframe, then getting stuck with 4.0 for a long time (say a year?) > and stuck with this problem is not fun. > > Next, I also agree that we cannot dilute the meaning of "bug", and > start throwing in seemingly harmless and super-stable enhancements > into the release branches. Take no chances. I do agree that this > particular enhancement should be simple and superficial enough to be > harmless. But for the sake of audit and organization and management, > bug fix and enhancement should be handled as clearly distinct > categories. > > Finally, I'd like to suggest a little trick we often do with such > deal-breaker "bugs" (ie, "bugs" for which we say "it's a feature!"). > Releases like 4.x (where x > 1) can include such enhancements. Sort > of like "hotfixes" for release branch 4. > > Will that mean maintaining 2 branches (4.0 and 4.1), and having to > apply any new patches to all members of the 4.x family? Yes! But... > it's not difficult. We need to make sure that all members of the 4.x > family are fully compatible with each other, ie enhancements being > thrown in are truly harmless and superficial enough that each 4.x > member is very largely similar (not fundamentally overhauled). In > short, all enhancements thrown into the 4.x family must *not* make > it less than super-easy to apply bug fixes uniformly to all members. > A bug fix to 4.x must be applicable to 4.y without any transformation. > > Hope that helps? > > I'd also like to bring in some marketing and sales perspectives. > When we market our clients' products, we need to create buzz or > activity. Having very regular and frequent releases along the 4.x > family makes it tangibly known that OFBiz is super-active and is > improving at breakneck speed. > > Jonathon > > David E Jones wrote: >> I'd prefer not to dilute the meaning of "bug". A bug is an existing >> feature that doesn't work as it was intended when written. >> Passwords in plain text would be a security issue, but since the >> fix for that issue is most likely a new feature rather than fixing >> an existing feature (I haven't looked at the code so I don't know >> if there is broken code that should do this, but it doesn't sound >> like it), then it is a new feature and not a bug. >> So, the question that started this thread is the most relevant: >> because it is a big concern, should we add this to the branch even >> though it is a new feature and not a bug fix? >> My opinion on that is let the users of the branch decide... I'm not >> really in a good position to express an opinion because I make a >> regular practice of pushing clients away from the branch and to the >> trunk so that new work we do for them (new stuff being most of what >> we do as a company) can be done in participation with the project. >> We could do a formal vote where only PMC votes are binding, but it >> might be more valuable to just get feedback from branch users and >> make a decision. Purely an administrative comment that. >> -David >> On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Michael Jensen wrote: >>> I agree with Tim. It's a security related bug fix. Displaying >>> passwords in plaintext on a screen is a bug. It is industry >>> standard >>> practice to not show passwords on the screen (either by replacing >>> w/asterisks or not displaying characters at all.) >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> Tim, >>>> >>>> From my perspective, it would be like finding a security breach >>>> in the >>>> branch. Would we want to close the security breach? Of course! >>>> Are we >>>> adding a new feature by doing so? I guess some people would >>>> consider a >>>> closed security breach a "new feature" - but the people >>>> downloading and >>>> deploying the branch would consider it a bug fix. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> Tim Ruppert wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm only against breaking the rules of the branch for this one >>>>> feature enhancement. If the application doesn't work, then >>>>> it's a >>>>> fix though. So, I guess it goes back to whether or not this is >>>>> a fix >>>>> of a problem that was there or is it a feature enhancement? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Tim >>>>> -- >>>>> Tim Ruppert >>>>> HotWax Media >>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>> >>>>> o:801.649.6594 >>>>> f:801.649.6595 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 14, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm not agiainst it, +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15/11/2007, Vince M. Clark <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vince Clark >>>>>>> Global Era >>>>>>> The Freedom of Open Source >>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>> (303) 493-6723 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]> >>>>>>> To: [hidden email] >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:16:31 AM (GMT-0700) >>>>>>> America/ >>>>>>> Denver >>>>>>> Subject: Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While technically it is not a bug fix, I believe it should go in >>>>>>> anyway - since the release is >>>>>>> intended to be widely deployed, and the problem your patch >>>>>>> addresses might be a deal breaker for >>>>>>> those who are considering deploying the release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 for including it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan Shields wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Jacques for helping get my patch for OFBIZ-1106 into >>>>>>>> OFBiz. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Devs, recently I participated with other developers to >>>>>>>> devise a >>>>>>>> fix for OFBIZ-1106. The patch I submitted is now in HEAD but >>>>>>>> UNsurprisingly it has been held back from release4.0 because >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> acceptance criteria, I am told, accepts only bug fixes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some would agree that release4.0 was unusable for POS for the >>>>>>>> fact >>>>>>>> that it echos the manager's and the user's password to the >>>>>>>> screen for >>>>>>>> all staff and customers to see. I don't know if any other >>>>>>>> developer >>>>>>>> has tried to train non-computer people to use the POS >>>>>>>> application, >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> I have seen the genuine surprise on their faces when they saw >>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>> own password appear on the screen as they typed. It should be >>>>>>>> self-evident that this is undesirable behavior. My patch merely >>>>>>>> replaces the characters on the screen with asterisks; it does >>>>>>>> so in a >>>>>>>> manner that respects existing APIs employed by the OFBiz POS >>>>>>>> application, it is well-tested, cleanly applies to HEAD and >>>>>>>> release4.0, and has been tested by other ofbiz developers as >>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems that there is some uncertainty over whether this is in >>>>>>>> fact a >>>>>>>> bug fix or not. I am merely asking for additional support in >>>>>>>> deciding: >>>>>>>> "For the purposes of release4.0, is my patch for OFBIZ-1106 a >>>>>>>> bug >>>>>>>> fix?" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Millcreek Systems, Inc. >>> P.O. Box 9835 >>> Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 >>> Phone: 801.649.4903 >>> Skype: millcreeksys (http://millcreeksys.com/skype/) > |
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Shoot, forgot the link: http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan -David On Nov 15, 2007, at 12:21 AM, David E Jones wrote: > > Here is the current release plan that explains everything related to > this. It is certainly open to change. > > The best way to do that is probably to propose variations on the > current plan and open discussion on them. > > Will be interesting however the conversation goes... (as Dan Shields > mentioned, with some liberty in variation) > > -David > > > On Nov 14, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > >> Ok, I'm just speaking from a business perspective here. Obviously, >> from developer's perspective, it's good to put that enchancement >> into release 4.0. I agree that this is not a fix, but an enhancement. >> >> First, it's cool to be able to tell clients that a new release >> (after 4.0) fixes a problem with clear passwords being shown. So, >> I'm for rolling that enhancement into the next release (say 4.1?). >> Oh yeah, we do agree that upgrading along the 4.x family should >> involve zero migration effort, right? >> >> That said, it should be obvious that my hope is to have release 4.0 >> stabilized asap, and free up resources to package and roll out the >> next release. If we're not gonna be fast and rapid about the >> release timeframe, then getting stuck with 4.0 for a long time (say >> a year?) and stuck with this problem is not fun. >> >> Next, I also agree that we cannot dilute the meaning of "bug", and >> start throwing in seemingly harmless and super-stable enhancements >> into the release branches. Take no chances. I do agree that this >> particular enhancement should be simple and superficial enough to >> be harmless. But for the sake of audit and organization and >> management, bug fix and enhancement should be handled as clearly >> distinct categories. >> >> Finally, I'd like to suggest a little trick we often do with such >> deal-breaker "bugs" (ie, "bugs" for which we say "it's a >> feature!"). Releases like 4.x (where x > 1) can include such >> enhancements. Sort of like "hotfixes" for release branch 4. >> >> Will that mean maintaining 2 branches (4.0 and 4.1), and having to >> apply any new patches to all members of the 4.x family? Yes! But... >> it's not difficult. We need to make sure that all members of the >> 4.x family are fully compatible with each other, ie enhancements >> being thrown in are truly harmless and superficial enough that each >> 4.x member is very largely similar (not fundamentally overhauled). >> In short, all enhancements thrown into the 4.x family must *not* >> make it less than super-easy to apply bug fixes uniformly to all >> members. A bug fix to 4.x must be applicable to 4.y without any >> transformation. >> >> Hope that helps? >> >> I'd also like to bring in some marketing and sales perspectives. >> When we market our clients' products, we need to create buzz or >> activity. Having very regular and frequent releases along the 4.x >> family makes it tangibly known that OFBiz is super-active and is >> improving at breakneck speed. >> >> Jonathon >> >> David E Jones wrote: >>> I'd prefer not to dilute the meaning of "bug". A bug is an >>> existing feature that doesn't work as it was intended when written. >>> Passwords in plain text would be a security issue, but since the >>> fix for that issue is most likely a new feature rather than fixing >>> an existing feature (I haven't looked at the code so I don't know >>> if there is broken code that should do this, but it doesn't sound >>> like it), then it is a new feature and not a bug. >>> So, the question that started this thread is the most relevant: >>> because it is a big concern, should we add this to the branch even >>> though it is a new feature and not a bug fix? >>> My opinion on that is let the users of the branch decide... I'm >>> not really in a good position to express an opinion because I make >>> a regular practice of pushing clients away from the branch and to >>> the trunk so that new work we do for them (new stuff being most of >>> what we do as a company) can be done in participation with the >>> project. >>> We could do a formal vote where only PMC votes are binding, but it >>> might be more valuable to just get feedback from branch users and >>> make a decision. Purely an administrative comment that. >>> -David >>> On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Michael Jensen wrote: >>>> I agree with Tim. It's a security related bug fix. Displaying >>>> passwords in plaintext on a screen is a bug. It is industry >>>> standard >>>> practice to not show passwords on the screen (either by replacing >>>> w/asterisks or not displaying characters at all.) >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> Tim, >>>>> >>>>> From my perspective, it would be like finding a security breach >>>>> in the >>>>> branch. Would we want to close the security breach? Of course! >>>>> Are we >>>>> adding a new feature by doing so? I guess some people would >>>>> consider a >>>>> closed security breach a "new feature" - but the people >>>>> downloading and >>>>> deploying the branch would consider it a bug fix. >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> Tim Ruppert wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm only against breaking the rules of the branch for this one >>>>>> feature enhancement. If the application doesn't work, then >>>>>> it's a >>>>>> fix though. So, I guess it goes back to whether or not this >>>>>> is a fix >>>>>> of a problem that was there or is it a feature enhancement? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Tim Ruppert >>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>> >>>>>> o:801.649.6594 >>>>>> f:801.649.6595 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 14, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not agiainst it, +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15/11/2007, Vince M. Clark <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vince Clark >>>>>>>> Global Era >>>>>>>> The Freedom of Open Source >>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>> (303) 493-6723 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> To: [hidden email] >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:16:31 AM (GMT-0700) >>>>>>>> America/ >>>>>>>> Denver >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While technically it is not a bug fix, I believe it should go >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> anyway - since the release is >>>>>>>> intended to be widely deployed, and the problem your patch >>>>>>>> addresses might be a deal breaker for >>>>>>>> those who are considering deploying the release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 for including it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan Shields wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Jacques for helping get my patch for OFBIZ-1106 into >>>>>>>>> OFBiz. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Devs, recently I participated with other developers >>>>>>>>> to devise a >>>>>>>>> fix for OFBIZ-1106. The patch I submitted is now in HEAD but >>>>>>>>> UNsurprisingly it has been held back from release4.0 because >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> acceptance criteria, I am told, accepts only bug fixes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some would agree that release4.0 was unusable for POS for >>>>>>>>> the fact >>>>>>>>> that it echos the manager's and the user's password to the >>>>>>>>> screen for >>>>>>>>> all staff and customers to see. I don't know if any other >>>>>>>>> developer >>>>>>>>> has tried to train non-computer people to use the POS >>>>>>>>> application, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> I have seen the genuine surprise on their faces when they >>>>>>>>> saw their >>>>>>>>> own password appear on the screen as they typed. It should be >>>>>>>>> self-evident that this is undesirable behavior. My patch >>>>>>>>> merely >>>>>>>>> replaces the characters on the screen with asterisks; it >>>>>>>>> does so in a >>>>>>>>> manner that respects existing APIs employed by the OFBiz POS >>>>>>>>> application, it is well-tested, cleanly applies to HEAD and >>>>>>>>> release4.0, and has been tested by other ofbiz developers as >>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems that there is some uncertainty over whether this is >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> fact a >>>>>>>>> bug fix or not. I am merely asking for additional support in >>>>>>>>> deciding: >>>>>>>>> "For the purposes of release4.0, is my patch for OFBIZ-1106 >>>>>>>>> a bug >>>>>>>>> fix?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Millcreek Systems, Inc. >>>> P.O. Box 9835 >>>> Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 >>>> Phone: 801.649.4903 >>>> Skype: millcreeksys (http://millcreeksys.com/skype/) >> > |
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
Re: release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)
|
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |