release4.0: OFBIZ-1106 (in or out?)

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Frankly speaking, my interest for the release branch is low, I've not
tested it too much and I usually suggest to clients to build their
fortune on the trunk.
That said it would be great to release it, if there is consensus from
the community.

Jacopo

David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604 
>>
>>
>> What to you think, you developpers ?
>
> I think first things first...
>
> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a
> code, etc perspective to be released?
>
> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many people
> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a
> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no one
> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
>
> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it uploaded
> and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who has been
> signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the KEYS file, etc).
>
> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release as a
> community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate revision in the
> branch for a binary release.
>
> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically won't
> be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough community
> feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact, I'd be
> ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to consider their own
> criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now this is mine.
>
> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned above...
>
> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
>
> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something in a
> bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
>
> -David
>
>

[BJ Freeman]

as per the bug found today on
Re: HtmlWidget missing a MapStack pop?
there are bugs and ver 40 needs a good test.
per the commit on this bug
Ver 4.0 was not updated.

:(


Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 11/26/2007 11:52 AM:

> Frankly speaking, my interest for the release branch is low, I've not
> tested it too much and I usually suggest to clients to build their
> fortune on the trunk.
> That said it would be great to release it, if there is consensus from
> the community.
>
> Jacopo
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604
>>>
>>>
>>> What to you think, you developpers ?
>>
>> I think first things first...
>>
>> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a
>> code, etc perspective to be released?
>>
>> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many people
>> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a
>> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no one
>> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
>>
>> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it
>> uploaded and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who
>> has been signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the KEYS
>> file, etc).
>>
>> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release as
>> a community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate revision in
>> the branch for a binary release.
>>
>> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically
>> won't be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough
>> community feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact,
>> I'd be ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to consider
>> their own criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now
>> this is mine.
>>
>> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned above...
>>
>> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
>>
>> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something in
>> a bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[BJ Freeman]

+1 beta

probably the only way it will ever get any attention.

David E Jones sent the following on 11/26/2007 11:44 AM:

>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604
>>
>>
>> What to you think, you developpers ?
>
> I think first things first...
>
> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a
> code, etc perspective to be released?
>
> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many people
> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a
> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no one
> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
>
> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it uploaded
> and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who has been
> signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the KEYS file, etc).
>
> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release as a
> community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate revision in the
> branch for a binary release.
>
> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically won't
> be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough community
> feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact, I'd be
> ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to consider their own
> criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now this is mine.
>
> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned above...
>
> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
>
> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something in a
> bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
>
> -David
>
>

[David E Jones]

The release4.0 branch needs testing, and that is the point of this  
thread. Of course there are bugs or issues, finding them and the  
nature of them is the point of doing this. You're right that these  
exist and need attention. Whether they should block a binary release  
is another question altogether.

As for the bug you mentioned... that is on my list of suspicious  
things to look into. It may not really be a bug. The XML Jonathon  
presented was not valid and some of what he wrote seemed inconsistent,  
and I don't get the feeling from what Al wrote that he actually tested  
it (I may be wrong on this, I haven't finished looking into it, as I  
mentioned above).

-David


On Nov 26, 2007, at 1:15 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:

> as per the bug found today on
> Re: HtmlWidget missing a MapStack pop?
> there are bugs and ver 40 needs a good test.
> per the commit on this bug
> Ver 4.0 was not updated.
>
> :(
>
>
> Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 11/26/2007 11:52 AM:
>> Frankly speaking, my interest for the release branch is low, I've not
>> tested it too much and I usually suggest to clients to build their
>> fortune on the trunk.
>> That said it would be great to release it, if there is consensus from
>> the community.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What to you think, you developpers ?
>>>
>>> I think first things first...
>>>
>>> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a
>>> code, etc perspective to be released?
>>>
>>> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many  
>>> people
>>> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a
>>> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no  
>>> one
>>> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
>>>
>>> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it
>>> uploaded and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who
>>> has been signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the  
>>> KEYS
>>> file, etc).
>>>
>>> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release  
>>> as
>>> a community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate  
>>> revision in
>>> the branch for a binary release.
>>>
>>> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically
>>> won't be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough
>>> community feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact,
>>> I'd be ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to  
>>> consider
>>> their own criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now
>>> this is mine.
>>>
>>> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned  
>>> above...
>>>
>>> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
>>>
>>> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something  
>>> in
>>> a bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[David E Jones]

But +1 for what reason?

We will NOT release this just to get attention. We will release it  
when there is at least a small consensus that it is ready.

-David


On Nov 26, 2007, at 1:19 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:

> +1 beta
>
> probably the only way it will ever get any attention.
>
> David E Jones sent the following on 11/26/2007 11:44 AM:
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604
>>>
>>>
>>> What to you think, you developpers ?
>>
>> I think first things first...
>>
>> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a
>> code, etc perspective to be released?
>>
>> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many  
>> people
>> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a
>> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no one
>> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
>>
>> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it  
>> uploaded
>> and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who has been
>> signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the KEYS file,  
>> etc).
>>
>> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release  
>> as a
>> community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate revision  
>> in the
>> branch for a binary release.
>>
>> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically  
>> won't
>> be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough  
>> community
>> feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact, I'd be
>> ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to consider  
>> their own
>> criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now this is  
>> mine.
>>
>> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned  
>> above...
>>
>> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
>>
>> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something  
>> in a
>> bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>

[Shi Yusen]

We have 2 programmers developing components on 4.0 branch for 4 months
and never heard any bugs found until now. The specialpurpose, eCommerce,
content, manufacturing are the components we didn't touch.

BTW, we have started to integrate jbpm with the 4.0 branch.

Regards,

Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.


在 2007-11-26一的 12:44 -0700，David E Jones写道：

> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
> > BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604
> >
> > What to you think, you developpers ?
>
> I think first things first...
>
> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a  
> code, etc perspective to be released?
>
> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many people  
> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a  
> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no one  
> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
>
> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it  
> uploaded and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who  
> has been signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the KEYS  
> file, etc).
>
> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release as  
> a community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate revision in  
> the branch for a binary release.
>
> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically  
> won't be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough  
> community feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact,  
> I'd be ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to consider  
> their own criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now  
> this is mine.
>
> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned  
> above...
>
> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
>
> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something in  
> a bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
>
> -David
>
>

[Shi Yusen]

I'd suggest to move all the i18n files outside the framework except the
defaults, only well qualified programmers can touch the code.

Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.


在 2007-11-26一的 13:22 -0700，David E Jones写道：

> The release4.0 branch needs testing, and that is the point of this  
> thread. Of course there are bugs or issues, finding them and the  
> nature of them is the point of doing this. You're right that these  
> exist and need attention. Whether they should block a binary release  
> is another question altogether.
>
> As for the bug you mentioned... that is on my list of suspicious  
> things to look into. It may not really be a bug. The XML Jonathon  
> presented was not valid and some of what he wrote seemed inconsistent,  
> and I don't get the feeling from what Al wrote that he actually tested  
> it (I may be wrong on this, I haven't finished looking into it, as I  
> mentioned above).
>
> -David
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 1:15 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
> > as per the bug found today on
> > Re: HtmlWidget missing a MapStack pop?
> > there are bugs and ver 40 needs a good test.
> > per the commit on this bug
> > Ver 4.0 was not updated.
> >
> > :(
> >
> >
> > Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 11/26/2007 11:52 AM:
> >> Frankly speaking, my interest for the release branch is low, I've not
> >> tested it too much and I usually suggest to clients to build their
> >> fortune on the trunk.
> >> That said it would be great to release it, if there is consensus from
> >> the community.
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
> >> David E Jones wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
> >>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What to you think, you developpers ?
> >>>
> >>> I think first things first...
> >>>
> >>> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a
> >>> code, etc perspective to be released?
> >>>
> >>> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many  
> >>> people
> >>> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a
> >>> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no  
> >>> one
> >>> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
> >>>
> >>> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it
> >>> uploaded and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who
> >>> has been signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the  
> >>> KEYS
> >>> file, etc).
> >>>
> >>> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release  
> >>> as
> >>> a community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate  
> >>> revision in
> >>> the branch for a binary release.
> >>>
> >>> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically
> >>> won't be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough
> >>> community feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact,
> >>> I'd be ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to  
> >>> consider
> >>> their own criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now
> >>> this is mine.
> >>>
> >>> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned  
> >>> above...
> >>>
> >>> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
> >>>
> >>> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something  
> >>> in
> >>> a bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
> >>>
> >>> -David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Shi,

This is really the kind of feedbacks we need...

Jacques

De : "Shi Yusen" <[hidden email]>

> We have 2 programmers developing components on 4.0 branch for 4 months
> and never heard any bugs found until now. The specialpurpose, eCommerce,
> content, manufacturing are the components we didn't touch.
>
> BTW, we have started to integrate jbpm with the 4.0 branch.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shi Yusen/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
>
>
> 在 2007-11-26一的 12:44 -0700，David E Jones写道：
> > On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >
> > > BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
> > > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604
> > >
> > > What to you think, you developpers ?
> >
> > I think first things first...
> >
> > The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a
> > code, etc perspective to be released?
> >
> > I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many people
> > are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a
> > "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no one
> > should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
> >
> > It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it
> > uploaded and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who
> > has been signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the KEYS
> > file, etc).
> >
> > Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release as
> > a community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate revision in
> > the branch for a binary release.
> >
> > Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically
> > won't be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough
> > community feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact,
> > I'd be ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to consider
> > their own criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now
> > this is mine.
> >
> > So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned
> > above...
> >
> > Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
> >
> > I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something in
> > a bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

De : "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>

> The release4.0 branch needs testing, and that is the point of this
> thread. Of course there are bugs or issues, finding them and the
> nature of them is the point of doing this. You're right that these
> exist and need attention. Whether they should block a binary release
> is another question altogether.
>
> As for the bug you mentioned... that is on my list of suspicious
> things to look into. It may not really be a bug. The XML Jonathon
> presented was not valid and some of what he wrote seemed inconsistent,
> and I don't get the feeling from what Al wrote that he actually tested
> it (I may be wrong on this, I haven't finished looking into it, as I
> mentioned above).

Ooops, I was maybe to quick when back porting (a so small an isolated change, but I'm aware with maybe great side effects). To late
tonight, I will test it tomorrow morning 1st hours in rel. 4.0  if nobody beats me.

Jacques

> -David
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 1:15 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
> > as per the bug found today on
> > Re: HtmlWidget missing a MapStack pop?
> > there are bugs and ver 40 needs a good test.
> > per the commit on this bug
> > Ver 4.0 was not updated.
> >
> > :(
> >
> >
> > Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 11/26/2007 11:52 AM:
> >> Frankly speaking, my interest for the release branch is low, I've not
> >> tested it too much and I usually suggest to clients to build their
> >> fortune on the trunk.
> >> That said it would be great to release it, if there is consensus from
> >> the community.
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
> >> David E Jones wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
> >>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What to you think, you developpers ?
> >>>
> >>> I think first things first...
> >>>
> >>> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a
> >>> code, etc perspective to be released?
> >>>
> >>> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many
> >>> people
> >>> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a
> >>> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no
> >>> one
> >>> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
> >>>
> >>> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it
> >>> uploaded and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who
> >>> has been signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the
> >>> KEYS
> >>> file, etc).
> >>>
> >>> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release
> >>> as
> >>> a community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate
> >>> revision in
> >>> the branch for a binary release.
> >>>
> >>> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically
> >>> won't be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough
> >>> community feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact,
> >>> I'd be ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to
> >>> consider
> >>> their own criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now
> >>> this is mine.
> >>>
> >>> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned
> >>> above...
> >>>
> >>> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
> >>>
> >>> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something
> >>> in
> >>> a bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
> >>>
> >>> -David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

[jonwimp]

 >> Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to hear the 3 letters "SVN"
 >> when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.

 > There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the nature of
 > OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on
 > customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible
 > to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
 > implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.

But isn't there value in mass market? The classic "funnel" structure?

If 100 people knew about OFBiz, maybe 90 could get interested due to the easy download and install
process. With SVN, maybe only 10!

If 90 download OFBiz, maybe 9 will customize it themselves. The others might be interested enough
to find help customizing it, if they see a polished or shrink-wrapped product (no half-implemented
features that send them flying off cliff when they click on one). If OFBiz has many "red screens
of death" (who coined this quote?) with most button clicks, maybe none of those non-techies will
buy it.

It's a numbers game. I don't think you need to pay much attention to the non-techie testers. Well,
unless they submit bug reports, tons of it. But then, isn't that good for stabilizing the release
branches of OFBiz?

I was from sales and marketing before, so the funnel phenomenon is deeply entrenched. 9 rejections
out of 10 is great result to me. That's why I'm still thinking that hitting 100 folks with binary
release is still better than hitting 10 folks with SVN release. The top of the funnel has to be large.

 > Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
 > users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward.

Then wouldn't we want more non-techie testers? The common complaint I hear is that there just
isn't enough testers and bug reports for the release branch.

 > In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
 > company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.

Some want to own forks. I can't help that. As I had always said, this aspect of strategic planning
for open source project like OFBiz is beyond me. I can't comment on this.

 > the thought of having thousands of users who don't want to customize and
 > don't contribute is REALLY scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems
 > that the current community isn't big or experienced enough to support for
 > free in a good old community fashion...

On other hand, what about the thought of having OFBiz 4.0 largely untested, and hardly a candidate
for binary release even after a long year? Maybe a balance somewhere is good?

I don't think the community is inadequate to handle every and any bug reports that can come in for
OFBiz. If you're worried about making a bad first impression because we rolled out a largely
clunky release, you gotta know that first impression was already formed even now. The fact that
there's no binary release already gave many folks a first impression. It's always
work-in-progress, and pain (in form of insulting bug reports if need be) is a good way to improve.

I'll be upfront with you about my own struggles in this locale. To me, OFBiz is fighting against
QuickBooks, NetBooks, NetSuite, even SAP. Time after time, my propositions with OFBiz loses
against those polished products. The first impression was already formed. (So I'm forced to
package OFBiz into a stable fork for them, unfortunately.)

You got yourself, Al Byers, Andy, many others. And now even Adrian Crumm is becoming an expert in
the Widget Engine. Sure, there is room for improvement everywhere. But I really don't think the
community is inadequate in technical skill sets.

 > To put it in more concrete terms: if I have to spend 20 hours a week
 > researching stuff so people don't commit things that are inconsistent or
 > difficult to manage or contradict or break things that exist, where do I get
 > time to actually do administrative tasks like creating a binary release?

I see. Is that why you think the community isn't ready for big-bang exposure?

Fine. I'll learn whatever necessary to create correct and streamlined patches (I did). I'll read
whatever I'm told to. Be strict about the coding conventions. If it will shave that time down from
20 hours to 2, be strict about it.

Problem: bad contributions that require administrative overhead to screen and process

Possible solution: certify contributors

Sigh. Are we really that bad?

 > Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things certainly
 > change over time.

Ok. I know, things will always change.

 > Just don't be too surprised if I pull out every gun I can think of to argue
 > against something that I think will be bad for the project, especially if I
 > am re-writing the thoughts.

If you didn't, I'd think the project is dead.

For what it's worth, seeing you manage the contributions going into OFBiz is a needed sign for
many of us that things are moving along.

Jonathon

David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>
>> The way we are doing it now, it's anal-retentive. It's like saying
>> "wait, boss, one more bugfix, just one more", and saying that for a
>> whole long year! I usually publish "release candidates" for my boss,
>> let him test it, let him scream the bug reports to me, then release
>> the next "release candidate" when he's gotten upset enough.
>
> Maybe the way you are doing it now... "we" is going a little far...
>
>> Ok, next question. So why not just let the whole world test the moving
>> OFBiz 4.0 branch? Why bother with publishing tarballs and release
>> candidates? Here's a simple analogy. Try telling our bosses "boss, can
>> you learn some SVN and test my bugfixes, so I don't have to prepare
>> tarballs for you?". Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to
>> hear the 3 letters "SVN" when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
>
> There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the nature of
> OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on
> customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible
> to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
> implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
>
> Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
> users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward.
> In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
> company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
>
> So, we WANT people to use OFBiz from SVN. I don't know about the others
> who are involved more actively in managing and moderating OFBiz (ie the
> PMC members and committers), but for me the thought of having thousands
> of users who don't want to customize and don't contribute is REALLY
> scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems that the current
> community isn't big or experienced enough to support for free in a good
> old community fashion...
>
> Don't get me wrong, I ONLY wrote what and I wrote and don't read other
> stuff into it. This (a binary release) IS something that is necessary to
> help grow the project, but with limited resources and most of those
> going into trying to stabilize development and contributions because
> most contributors write WAY more than they read and research... we are
> where we are, and it is what it is. To put it in more concrete terms: if
> I have to spend 20 hours a week researching stuff so people don't commit
> things that are inconsistent or difficult to manage or contradict or
> break things that exist, where do I get time to actually do
> administrative tasks like creating a binary release?
>
>> Also, given that the 3rd-party binaries (more than 50% of OFBiz
>> download size is *not* OFBiz codes!) is in the SVN, it is in the OFBiz
>> PMC's interest to lessen the load on the SVN server wherever possible.
>
> Nice try. Machines are machines and are cheap and easy to manage. People
> are people and are expensive and difficult to manage. It's that simple.
> If it makes things more difficult for developers it will hamper or kill
> the project.
>
> Not gonna happen, especially if we want it to be possible to have enough
> resources to put together a binary release anytime soon...
>
>> Just my 2 cents. I'm feeling very embarrassed for beating this topic
>> so much to death by now.
>
> Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things
> certainly change over time. Just don't be too surprised if I pull out
> every gun I can think of to argue against something that I think will be
> bad for the project, especially if I am re-writing the thoughts.
>
> -David
>

[jonwimp]

Call me reckless, but I don't think that bug should block binary release. As mentioned before,
obsolete a bad release if we need to. I'll be testing the framework a lot over the coming month,
so we might see another binary release if I happen to dig up enough critical bugs.

As the release branch is now, it is functional. No show-stopping bugs. Well, it runs. We'll let
the world-wide community catch the bugs in the binary release.

 > As for the bug you mentioned... that is on my list of suspicious things
 > to look into. It may not really be a bug. The XML Jonathon presented was
 > not valid and some of what he wrote seemed inconsistent, and I don't get
 > the feeling from what Al wrote that he actually tested it (I may be
 > wrong on this, I haven't finished looking into it, as I mentioned above).

That particular bug in HtmlWidget.java should be a bug. However, the use case is quite rare, so
that may be why nobody has caught it yet.

The XML I wrote is conceptual only. I didn't test if that worked.

The concept is like this.

A decorator includes 2 sections, "section1" and "section2".

Section "section1" is included inside of a <html-template-decorator>, aka a decorator ftl (as
opposed to a decorator screen widget).

Section "section2" is included in the context of the top-level decorator (the one first mentioned,
above).

The bug is in the rendering of the <html>, I think. It is obvious, and the fix is simple. There is
a stack push without a corresponding stack pop. Simple as that.

Hey, why am I describing this again? The detailed test case was described in another thread already.

Jonathon

David E Jones wrote:

>
> The release4.0 branch needs testing, and that is the point of this
> thread. Of course there are bugs or issues, finding them and the nature
> of them is the point of doing this. You're right that these exist and
> need attention. Whether they should block a binary release is another
> question altogether.
>
> As for the bug you mentioned... that is on my list of suspicious things
> to look into. It may not really be a bug. The XML Jonathon presented was
> not valid and some of what he wrote seemed inconsistent, and I don't get
> the feeling from what Al wrote that he actually tested it (I may be
> wrong on this, I haven't finished looking into it, as I mentioned above).
>
> -David
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 1:15 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
>> as per the bug found today on
>> Re: HtmlWidget missing a MapStack pop?
>> there are bugs and ver 40 needs a good test.
>> per the commit on this bug
>> Ver 4.0 was not updated.
>>
>> :(
>>
>>
>> Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 11/26/2007 11:52 AM:
>>> Frankly speaking, my interest for the release branch is low, I've not
>>> tested it too much and I usually suggest to clients to build their
>>> fortune on the trunk.
>>> That said it would be great to release it, if there is consensus from
>>> the community.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What to you think, you developpers ?
>>>>
>>>> I think first things first...
>>>>
>>>> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a
>>>> code, etc perspective to be released?
>>>>
>>>> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many people
>>>> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a
>>>> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no one
>>>> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
>>>>
>>>> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it
>>>> uploaded and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who
>>>> has been signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the KEYS
>>>> file, etc).
>>>>
>>>> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release as
>>>> a community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate revision in
>>>> the branch for a binary release.
>>>>
>>>> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically
>>>> won't be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough
>>>> community feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact,
>>>> I'd be ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to consider
>>>> their own criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now
>>>> this is mine.
>>>>
>>>> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned
>>>> above...
>>>>
>>>> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
>>>>
>>>> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something in
>>>> a bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[jonwimp]

Hmm. I didn't think about this, that we shouldn't release for sake of getting attention. It's true
that it is irritating to end-users if we release something not functional. OFBiz 4.0 is
functional. I haven't found any show-stopping bugs.

The reason for the release, IHMO, isn't to get attention. It is to steer away from rejecting
attention. Believe me, people have heard about OFBiz where I am. Quite the craze, especially where
SAP was widely used for expensive and less-than-optimal results.

The next question after they hear about OFBiz: "So how do I get OFBiz?".

Jonathon

David E Jones wrote:

>
> But +1 for what reason?
>
> We will NOT release this just to get attention. We will release it when
> there is at least a small consensus that it is ready.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 1:19 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
>> +1 beta
>>
>> probably the only way it will ever get any attention.
>>
>> David E Jones sent the following on 11/26/2007 11:44 AM:
>>>
>>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What to you think, you developpers ?
>>>
>>> I think first things first...
>>>
>>> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a
>>> code, etc perspective to be released?
>>>
>>> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many people
>>> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a
>>> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no one
>>> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
>>>
>>> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it uploaded
>>> and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who has been
>>> signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the KEYS file,
>>> etc).
>>>
>>> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release as a
>>> community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate revision in the
>>> branch for a binary release.
>>>
>>> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically won't
>>> be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough community
>>> feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact, I'd be
>>> ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to consider their own
>>> criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now this is mine.
>>>
>>> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned
>>> above...
>>>
>>> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
>>>
>>> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something in a
>>> bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Jonathon, all,

One day or another "we" will have to pass a vote about exposing officially the release as tarball and such.
I guess one reason "we" don't do it as fast as you'd like is that it's a one man process (David has exposed number of other reasons,
which you discussed below).
As David briefly explained (he talked about keys) there is a release manager for each TLP (note the idea about technical and social
ones) http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-manager.
And releases must follow certains guidelines http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice.
. I think we have achieved all the requirements regarding licence and such
. There seems to be less and less bugs to back port and anyway this is not a criteria as explained in links above.
. The documentation sounds pretty updated.

But there is still some works to do :
. Prepare release announcements and advertising
. Create the tarballs (different types for Linux, Windows, etc.) as it was done here
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Incubating+4.0.0+Test+Snapshot+Release following
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-HowtodoOFBizReleaseRelatedTasks
. Check all  points in the 1st 2 links above
. Launch an official vote (only PMC votes are binding)
. Certainly some points I forgot...

By chance "we" should have been thru all this during incubation (see snapshot release link above)

So I think "we" are not so far from releasing. The main thing would be to have more testing for the current release4.0, and
especially feedback from real production environments. Maybe we should ask for this last point on user ML ?

Thanks

Jacques


De : "Jonathon -- Improov" <[hidden email]>

> >> Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to hear the 3 letters "SVN"
>  >> when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
>
>  > There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the nature of
>  > OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on
>  > customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible
>  > to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
>  > implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
>
> But isn't there value in mass market? The classic "funnel" structure?
>
> If 100 people knew about OFBiz, maybe 90 could get interested due to the easy download and install
> process. With SVN, maybe only 10!
>
> If 90 download OFBiz, maybe 9 will customize it themselves. The others might be interested enough
> to find help customizing it, if they see a polished or shrink-wrapped product (no half-implemented
> features that send them flying off cliff when they click on one). If OFBiz has many "red screens
> of death" (who coined this quote?) with most button clicks, maybe none of those non-techies will
> buy it.
>
> It's a numbers game. I don't think you need to pay much attention to the non-techie testers. Well,
> unless they submit bug reports, tons of it. But then, isn't that good for stabilizing the release
> branches of OFBiz?
>
> I was from sales and marketing before, so the funnel phenomenon is deeply entrenched. 9 rejections
> out of 10 is great result to me. That's why I'm still thinking that hitting 100 folks with binary
> release is still better than hitting 10 folks with SVN release. The top of the funnel has to be large.
>
>  > Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
>  > users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward.
>
> Then wouldn't we want more non-techie testers? The common complaint I hear is that there just
> isn't enough testers and bug reports for the release branch.
>
>  > In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
>  > company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
>
> Some want to own forks. I can't help that. As I had always said, this aspect of strategic planning
> for open source project like OFBiz is beyond me. I can't comment on this.
>
>  > the thought of having thousands of users who don't want to customize and
>  > don't contribute is REALLY scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems
>  > that the current community isn't big or experienced enough to support for
>  > free in a good old community fashion...
>
> On other hand, what about the thought of having OFBiz 4.0 largely untested, and hardly a candidate
> for binary release even after a long year? Maybe a balance somewhere is good?
>
> I don't think the community is inadequate to handle every and any bug reports that can come in for
> OFBiz. If you're worried about making a bad first impression because we rolled out a largely
> clunky release, you gotta know that first impression was already formed even now. The fact that
> there's no binary release already gave many folks a first impression. It's always
> work-in-progress, and pain (in form of insulting bug reports if need be) is a good way to improve.
>
> I'll be upfront with you about my own struggles in this locale. To me, OFBiz is fighting against
> QuickBooks, NetBooks, NetSuite, even SAP. Time after time, my propositions with OFBiz loses
> against those polished products. The first impression was already formed. (So I'm forced to
> package OFBiz into a stable fork for them, unfortunately.)
>
> You got yourself, Al Byers, Andy, many others. And now even Adrian Crumm is becoming an expert in
> the Widget Engine. Sure, there is room for improvement everywhere. But I really don't think the
> community is inadequate in technical skill sets.
>
>  > To put it in more concrete terms: if I have to spend 20 hours a week
>  > researching stuff so people don't commit things that are inconsistent or
>  > difficult to manage or contradict or break things that exist, where do I get
>  > time to actually do administrative tasks like creating a binary release?
>
> I see. Is that why you think the community isn't ready for big-bang exposure?
>
> Fine. I'll learn whatever necessary to create correct and streamlined patches (I did). I'll read
> whatever I'm told to. Be strict about the coding conventions. If it will shave that time down from
> 20 hours to 2, be strict about it.
>
> Problem: bad contributions that require administrative overhead to screen and process
>
> Possible solution: certify contributors
>
> Sigh. Are we really that bad?
>
>  > Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things certainly
>  > change over time.
>
> Ok. I know, things will always change.
>
>  > Just don't be too surprised if I pull out every gun I can think of to argue
>  > against something that I think will be bad for the project, especially if I
>  > am re-writing the thoughts.
>
> If you didn't, I'd think the project is dead.
>
> For what it's worth, seeing you manage the contributions going into OFBiz is a needed sign for
> many of us that things are moving along.
>
> Jonathon
>
> David E Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >
> >> The way we are doing it now, it's anal-retentive. It's like saying
> >> "wait, boss, one more bugfix, just one more", and saying that for a
> >> whole long year! I usually publish "release candidates" for my boss,
> >> let him test it, let him scream the bug reports to me, then release
> >> the next "release candidate" when he's gotten upset enough.
> >
> > Maybe the way you are doing it now... "we" is going a little far...
> >
> >> Ok, next question. So why not just let the whole world test the moving
> >> OFBiz 4.0 branch? Why bother with publishing tarballs and release
> >> candidates? Here's a simple analogy. Try telling our bosses "boss, can
> >> you learn some SVN and test my bugfixes, so I don't have to prepare
> >> tarballs for you?". Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to
> >> hear the 3 letters "SVN" when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
> >
> > There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the nature of
> > OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on
> > customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible
> > to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
> > implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
> >
> > Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
> > users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward.
> > In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
> > company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
> >
> > So, we WANT people to use OFBiz from SVN. I don't know about the others
> > who are involved more actively in managing and moderating OFBiz (ie the
> > PMC members and committers), but for me the thought of having thousands
> > of users who don't want to customize and don't contribute is REALLY
> > scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems that the current
> > community isn't big or experienced enough to support for free in a good
> > old community fashion...
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I ONLY wrote what and I wrote and don't read other
> > stuff into it. This (a binary release) IS something that is necessary to
> > help grow the project, but with limited resources and most of those
> > going into trying to stabilize development and contributions because
> > most contributors write WAY more than they read and research... we are
> > where we are, and it is what it is. To put it in more concrete terms: if
> > I have to spend 20 hours a week researching stuff so people don't commit
> > things that are inconsistent or difficult to manage or contradict or
> > break things that exist, where do I get time to actually do
> > administrative tasks like creating a binary release?
> >
> >> Also, given that the 3rd-party binaries (more than 50% of OFBiz
> >> download size is *not* OFBiz codes!) is in the SVN, it is in the OFBiz
> >> PMC's interest to lessen the load on the SVN server wherever possible.
> >
> > Nice try. Machines are machines and are cheap and easy to manage. People
> > are people and are expensive and difficult to manage. It's that simple.
> > If it makes things more difficult for developers it will hamper or kill
> > the project.
> >
> > Not gonna happen, especially if we want it to be possible to have enough
> > resources to put together a binary release anytime soon...
> >
> >> Just my 2 cents. I'm feeling very embarrassed for beating this topic
> >> so much to death by now.
> >
> > Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things
> > certainly change over time. Just don't be too surprised if I pull out
> > every gun I can think of to argue against something that I think will be
> > bad for the project, especially if I am re-writing the thoughts.
> >
> > -David
> >
>

[BJ Freeman]

Need to decide what to do about code sections that are incomplete.
we have demo software that shows information as to how the software works.
the Demo software circumvents the actual processes to input and process
the actual items.
Case in point is the Feature.
https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/EditProductPrices?productId=PC001
shows price for the toplevel.
https://operations.digiresources.com:8443/catalog/control/EditProductConfigs?productId=PC001
does not give any way to add additional pricing.
I may have missed something but I have clicked every button and worked
my way thru the controller.
I just don't find how to make the same PC001 in the catalog.
DemoConfigurator.xml
shows products that don't show in the catalog but do show in the
ecommerce page.
for PC001.


Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/27/2007 2:14 AM:

> Jonathon, all,
>
> One day or another "we" will have to pass a vote about exposing officially the release as tarball and such.
> I guess one reason "we" don't do it as fast as you'd like is that it's a one man process (David has exposed number of other reasons,
> which you discussed below).
> As David briefly explained (he talked about keys) there is a release manager for each TLP (note the idea about technical and social
> ones) http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-manager.
> And releases must follow certains guidelines http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice.
> . I think we have achieved all the requirements regarding licence and such
> . There seems to be less and less bugs to back port and anyway this is not a criteria as explained in links above.
> . The documentation sounds pretty updated.
>
> But there is still some works to do :
> . Prepare release announcements and advertising
> . Create the tarballs (different types for Linux, Windows, etc.) as it was done here
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Incubating+4.0.0+Test+Snapshot+Release following
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-HowtodoOFBizReleaseRelatedTasks
> . Check all  points in the 1st 2 links above
> . Launch an official vote (only PMC votes are binding)
> . Certainly some points I forgot...
>
> By chance "we" should have been thru all this during incubation (see snapshot release link above)
>
> So I think "we" are not so far from releasing. The main thing would be to have more testing for the current release4.0, and
> especially feedback from real production environments. Maybe we should ask for this last point on user ML ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
> De : "Jonathon -- Improov" <[hidden email]>
>>>> Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to hear the 3 letters "SVN"
>>  >> when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
>>
>>  > There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the nature of
>>  > OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on
>>  > customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible
>>  > to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
>>  > implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
>>
>> But isn't there value in mass market? The classic "funnel" structure?
>>
>> If 100 people knew about OFBiz, maybe 90 could get interested due to the easy download and install
>> process. With SVN, maybe only 10!
>>
>> If 90 download OFBiz, maybe 9 will customize it themselves. The others might be interested enough
>> to find help customizing it, if they see a polished or shrink-wrapped product (no half-implemented
>> features that send them flying off cliff when they click on one). If OFBiz has many "red screens
>> of death" (who coined this quote?) with most button clicks, maybe none of those non-techies will
>> buy it.
>>
>> It's a numbers game. I don't think you need to pay much attention to the non-techie testers. Well,
>> unless they submit bug reports, tons of it. But then, isn't that good for stabilizing the release
>> branches of OFBiz?
>>
>> I was from sales and marketing before, so the funnel phenomenon is deeply entrenched. 9 rejections
>> out of 10 is great result to me. That's why I'm still thinking that hitting 100 folks with binary
>> release is still better than hitting 10 folks with SVN release. The top of the funnel has to be large.
>>
>>  > Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
>>  > users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward.
>>
>> Then wouldn't we want more non-techie testers? The common complaint I hear is that there just
>> isn't enough testers and bug reports for the release branch.
>>
>>  > In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
>>  > company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
>>
>> Some want to own forks. I can't help that. As I had always said, this aspect of strategic planning
>> for open source project like OFBiz is beyond me. I can't comment on this.
>>
>>  > the thought of having thousands of users who don't want to customize and
>>  > don't contribute is REALLY scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems
>>  > that the current community isn't big or experienced enough to support for
>>  > free in a good old community fashion...
>>
>> On other hand, what about the thought of having OFBiz 4.0 largely untested, and hardly a candidate
>> for binary release even after a long year? Maybe a balance somewhere is good?
>>
>> I don't think the community is inadequate to handle every and any bug reports that can come in for
>> OFBiz. If you're worried about making a bad first impression because we rolled out a largely
>> clunky release, you gotta know that first impression was already formed even now. The fact that
>> there's no binary release already gave many folks a first impression. It's always
>> work-in-progress, and pain (in form of insulting bug reports if need be) is a good way to improve.
>>
>> I'll be upfront with you about my own struggles in this locale. To me, OFBiz is fighting against
>> QuickBooks, NetBooks, NetSuite, even SAP. Time after time, my propositions with OFBiz loses
>> against those polished products. The first impression was already formed. (So I'm forced to
>> package OFBiz into a stable fork for them, unfortunately.)
>>
>> You got yourself, Al Byers, Andy, many others. And now even Adrian Crumm is becoming an expert in
>> the Widget Engine. Sure, there is room for improvement everywhere. But I really don't think the
>> community is inadequate in technical skill sets.
>>
>>  > To put it in more concrete terms: if I have to spend 20 hours a week
>>  > researching stuff so people don't commit things that are inconsistent or
>>  > difficult to manage or contradict or break things that exist, where do I get
>>  > time to actually do administrative tasks like creating a binary release?
>>
>> I see. Is that why you think the community isn't ready for big-bang exposure?
>>
>> Fine. I'll learn whatever necessary to create correct and streamlined patches (I did). I'll read
>> whatever I'm told to. Be strict about the coding conventions. If it will shave that time down from
>> 20 hours to 2, be strict about it.
>>
>> Problem: bad contributions that require administrative overhead to screen and process
>>
>> Possible solution: certify contributors
>>
>> Sigh. Are we really that bad?
>>
>>  > Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things certainly
>>  > change over time.
>>
>> Ok. I know, things will always change.
>>
>>  > Just don't be too surprised if I pull out every gun I can think of to argue
>>  > against something that I think will be bad for the project, especially if I
>>  > am re-writing the thoughts.
>>
>> If you didn't, I'd think the project is dead.
>>
>> For what it's worth, seeing you manage the contributions going into OFBiz is a needed sign for
>> many of us that things are moving along.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>
>>>> The way we are doing it now, it's anal-retentive. It's like saying
>>>> "wait, boss, one more bugfix, just one more", and saying that for a
>>>> whole long year! I usually publish "release candidates" for my boss,
>>>> let him test it, let him scream the bug reports to me, then release
>>>> the next "release candidate" when he's gotten upset enough.
>>> Maybe the way you are doing it now... "we" is going a little far...
>>>
>>>> Ok, next question. So why not just let the whole world test the moving
>>>> OFBiz 4.0 branch? Why bother with publishing tarballs and release
>>>> candidates? Here's a simple analogy. Try telling our bosses "boss, can
>>>> you learn some SVN and test my bugfixes, so I don't have to prepare
>>>> tarballs for you?". Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to
>>>> hear the 3 letters "SVN" when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
>>> There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the nature of
>>> OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on
>>> customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible
>>> to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
>>> implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
>>>
>>> Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
>>> users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward.
>>> In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
>>> company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
>>>
>>> So, we WANT people to use OFBiz from SVN. I don't know about the others
>>> who are involved more actively in managing and moderating OFBiz (ie the
>>> PMC members and committers), but for me the thought of having thousands
>>> of users who don't want to customize and don't contribute is REALLY
>>> scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems that the current
>>> community isn't big or experienced enough to support for free in a good
>>> old community fashion...
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I ONLY wrote what and I wrote and don't read other
>>> stuff into it. This (a binary release) IS something that is necessary to
>>> help grow the project, but with limited resources and most of those
>>> going into trying to stabilize development and contributions because
>>> most contributors write WAY more than they read and research... we are
>>> where we are, and it is what it is. To put it in more concrete terms: if
>>> I have to spend 20 hours a week researching stuff so people don't commit
>>> things that are inconsistent or difficult to manage or contradict or
>>> break things that exist, where do I get time to actually do
>>> administrative tasks like creating a binary release?
>>>
>>>> Also, given that the 3rd-party binaries (more than 50% of OFBiz
>>>> download size is *not* OFBiz codes!) is in the SVN, it is in the OFBiz
>>>> PMC's interest to lessen the load on the SVN server wherever possible.
>>> Nice try. Machines are machines and are cheap and easy to manage. People
>>> are people and are expensive and difficult to manage. It's that simple.
>>> If it makes things more difficult for developers it will hamper or kill
>>> the project.
>>>
>>> Not gonna happen, especially if we want it to be possible to have enough
>>> resources to put together a binary release anytime soon...
>>>
>>>> Just my 2 cents. I'm feeling very embarrassed for beating this topic
>>>> so much to death by now.
>>> Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things
>>> certainly change over time. Just don't be too surprised if I pull out
>>> every gun I can think of to argue against something that I think will be
>>> bad for the project, especially if I am re-writing the thoughts.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>
>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

De : "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>

> De : "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
> > The release4.0 branch needs testing, and that is the point of this
> > thread. Of course there are bugs or issues, finding them and the
> > nature of them is the point of doing this. You're right that these
> > exist and need attention. Whether they should block a binary release
> > is another question altogether.
> >
> > As for the bug you mentioned... that is on my list of suspicious
> > things to look into. It may not really be a bug. The XML Jonathon
> > presented was not valid and some of what he wrote seemed inconsistent,
> > and I don't get the feeling from what Al wrote that he actually tested
> > it (I may be wrong on this, I haven't finished looking into it, as I
> > mentioned above).
>
> Ooops, I was maybe to quick when back porting (a so small an isolated change, but I'm aware with maybe great side effects). To

late
> tonight, I will test it tomorrow morning 1st hours in rel. 4.0  if nobody beats me.

Jonathon wrote:
In that exact Java method in class HtmlWidget. Look for a push without a matching pop. Very obvious. Just add a pop. I tested the
fix, it works.
Jonathon

Yes obvious... at least as soon as you have understand how all this works, finally did not even test.

Jacques

> Jacques
>
> > -David
> >
> >
> > On Nov 26, 2007, at 1:15 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> >
> > > as per the bug found today on
> > > Re: HtmlWidget missing a MapStack pop?
> > > there are bugs and ver 40 needs a good test.
> > > per the commit on this bug
> > > Ver 4.0 was not updated.
> > >
> > > :(
> > >
> > >
> > > Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 11/26/2007 11:52 AM:
> > >> Frankly speaking, my interest for the release branch is low, I've not
> > >> tested it too much and I usually suggest to clients to build their
> > >> fortune on the trunk.
> > >> That said it would be great to release it, if there is consensus from
> > >> the community.
> > >>
> > >> Jacopo
> > >>
> > >> David E Jones wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in
> > >>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What to you think, you developpers ?
> > >>>
> > >>> I think first things first...
> > >>>
> > >>> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a
> > >>> code, etc perspective to be released?
> > >>>
> > >>> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many
> > >>> people
> > >>> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a
> > >>> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no
> > >>> one
> > >>> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)?
> > >>>
> > >>> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it
> > >>> uploaded and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who
> > >>> has been signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the
> > >>> KEYS
> > >>> file, etc).
> > >>>
> > >>> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release
> > >>> as
> > >>> a community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate
> > >>> revision in
> > >>> the branch for a binary release.
> > >>>
> > >>> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically
> > >>> won't be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough
> > >>> community feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact,
> > >>> I'd be ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to
> > >>> consider
> > >>> their own criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now
> > >>> this is mine.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned
> > >>> above...
> > >>>
> > >>> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward!
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something
> > >>> in
> > >>> a bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here.
> > >>>
> > >>> -David
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

[jonwimp]

BJ has mentioned a few outstanding issues that could make the binary release look incomplete.

Frankly, OFBiz 4.0 is far from complete, but not because it doesn't have anything more than
half-baked features. It's because it has so many new features slapped on that are not fully
implemented yet. OFBiz 4.0 has enough core features to be a fully functional release.

While it is true that it would be good to remove those half-baked features (red herrings), it
would take way too much time. Also, the effort would be destructive, not constructive. Would
rather evolve OFBiz 4.0 into the 4.x family to complete those half-baked features over time.

Also true that OFBiz 4.0, with its numerous new features that are half-baked, could make it look
bad. If we already had *one* binary release, we could still use that binary release to continue
collecting bug reports for the next release. But as it is now, we don't have a single binary
release for OFBiz 4.0. With a binary release, chances are we will have more testers.

Ok, I've done my bit for the "social aspect" of this binary release. What do the others think?

David is right about one thing, definitely. If there are only few of us who respond to Jacques'
social call for release discussion, then there isn't enough homework done (outstanding issues
review and such) for a proper release. Any other issues we need to look at?

(Thanks BJ, for highlighting the outstanding issues. Those fixes that are easy to do would likely
be thrown into the release).

Jonathon

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Jonathon, all,
>
> One day or another "we" will have to pass a vote about exposing officially the release as tarball and such.
> I guess one reason "we" don't do it as fast as you'd like is that it's a one man process (David has exposed number of other reasons,
> which you discussed below).
> As David briefly explained (he talked about keys) there is a release manager for each TLP (note the idea about technical and social
> ones) http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-manager.
> And releases must follow certains guidelines http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice.
> . I think we have achieved all the requirements regarding licence and such
> . There seems to be less and less bugs to back port and anyway this is not a criteria as explained in links above.
> . The documentation sounds pretty updated.
>
> But there is still some works to do :
> . Prepare release announcements and advertising
> . Create the tarballs (different types for Linux, Windows, etc.) as it was done here
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Incubating+4.0.0+Test+Snapshot+Release following
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-HowtodoOFBizReleaseRelatedTasks
> . Check all  points in the 1st 2 links above
> . Launch an official vote (only PMC votes are binding)
> . Certainly some points I forgot...
>
> By chance "we" should have been thru all this during incubation (see snapshot release link above)
>
> So I think "we" are not so far from releasing. The main thing would be to have more testing for the current release4.0, and
> especially feedback from real production environments. Maybe we should ask for this last point on user ML ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
> De : "Jonathon -- Improov" <[hidden email]>
>>>> Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to hear the 3 letters "SVN"
>>  >> when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
>>
>>  > There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the nature of
>>  > OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on
>>  > customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible
>>  > to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
>>  > implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
>>
>> But isn't there value in mass market? The classic "funnel" structure?
>>
>> If 100 people knew about OFBiz, maybe 90 could get interested due to the easy download and install
>> process. With SVN, maybe only 10!
>>
>> If 90 download OFBiz, maybe 9 will customize it themselves. The others might be interested enough
>> to find help customizing it, if they see a polished or shrink-wrapped product (no half-implemented
>> features that send them flying off cliff when they click on one). If OFBiz has many "red screens
>> of death" (who coined this quote?) with most button clicks, maybe none of those non-techies will
>> buy it.
>>
>> It's a numbers game. I don't think you need to pay much attention to the non-techie testers. Well,
>> unless they submit bug reports, tons of it. But then, isn't that good for stabilizing the release
>> branches of OFBiz?
>>
>> I was from sales and marketing before, so the funnel phenomenon is deeply entrenched. 9 rejections
>> out of 10 is great result to me. That's why I'm still thinking that hitting 100 folks with binary
>> release is still better than hitting 10 folks with SVN release. The top of the funnel has to be large.
>>
>>  > Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
>>  > users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward.
>>
>> Then wouldn't we want more non-techie testers? The common complaint I hear is that there just
>> isn't enough testers and bug reports for the release branch.
>>
>>  > In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
>>  > company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
>>
>> Some want to own forks. I can't help that. As I had always said, this aspect of strategic planning
>> for open source project like OFBiz is beyond me. I can't comment on this.
>>
>>  > the thought of having thousands of users who don't want to customize and
>>  > don't contribute is REALLY scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems
>>  > that the current community isn't big or experienced enough to support for
>>  > free in a good old community fashion...
>>
>> On other hand, what about the thought of having OFBiz 4.0 largely untested, and hardly a candidate
>> for binary release even after a long year? Maybe a balance somewhere is good?
>>
>> I don't think the community is inadequate to handle every and any bug reports that can come in for
>> OFBiz. If you're worried about making a bad first impression because we rolled out a largely
>> clunky release, you gotta know that first impression was already formed even now. The fact that
>> there's no binary release already gave many folks a first impression. It's always
>> work-in-progress, and pain (in form of insulting bug reports if need be) is a good way to improve.
>>
>> I'll be upfront with you about my own struggles in this locale. To me, OFBiz is fighting against
>> QuickBooks, NetBooks, NetSuite, even SAP. Time after time, my propositions with OFBiz loses
>> against those polished products. The first impression was already formed. (So I'm forced to
>> package OFBiz into a stable fork for them, unfortunately.)
>>
>> You got yourself, Al Byers, Andy, many others. And now even Adrian Crumm is becoming an expert in
>> the Widget Engine. Sure, there is room for improvement everywhere. But I really don't think the
>> community is inadequate in technical skill sets.
>>
>>  > To put it in more concrete terms: if I have to spend 20 hours a week
>>  > researching stuff so people don't commit things that are inconsistent or
>>  > difficult to manage or contradict or break things that exist, where do I get
>>  > time to actually do administrative tasks like creating a binary release?
>>
>> I see. Is that why you think the community isn't ready for big-bang exposure?
>>
>> Fine. I'll learn whatever necessary to create correct and streamlined patches (I did). I'll read
>> whatever I'm told to. Be strict about the coding conventions. If it will shave that time down from
>> 20 hours to 2, be strict about it.
>>
>> Problem: bad contributions that require administrative overhead to screen and process
>>
>> Possible solution: certify contributors
>>
>> Sigh. Are we really that bad?
>>
>>  > Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things certainly
>>  > change over time.
>>
>> Ok. I know, things will always change.
>>
>>  > Just don't be too surprised if I pull out every gun I can think of to argue
>>  > against something that I think will be bad for the project, especially if I
>>  > am re-writing the thoughts.
>>
>> If you didn't, I'd think the project is dead.
>>
>> For what it's worth, seeing you manage the contributions going into OFBiz is a needed sign for
>> many of us that things are moving along.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>
>>>> The way we are doing it now, it's anal-retentive. It's like saying
>>>> "wait, boss, one more bugfix, just one more", and saying that for a
>>>> whole long year! I usually publish "release candidates" for my boss,
>>>> let him test it, let him scream the bug reports to me, then release
>>>> the next "release candidate" when he's gotten upset enough.
>>> Maybe the way you are doing it now... "we" is going a little far...
>>>
>>>> Ok, next question. So why not just let the whole world test the moving
>>>> OFBiz 4.0 branch? Why bother with publishing tarballs and release
>>>> candidates? Here's a simple analogy. Try telling our bosses "boss, can
>>>> you learn some SVN and test my bugfixes, so I don't have to prepare
>>>> tarballs for you?". Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to
>>>> hear the 3 letters "SVN" when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
>>> There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the nature of
>>> OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on
>>> customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible
>>> to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
>>> implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
>>>
>>> Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
>>> users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward.
>>> In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
>>> company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
>>>
>>> So, we WANT people to use OFBiz from SVN. I don't know about the others
>>> who are involved more actively in managing and moderating OFBiz (ie the
>>> PMC members and committers), but for me the thought of having thousands
>>> of users who don't want to customize and don't contribute is REALLY
>>> scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems that the current
>>> community isn't big or experienced enough to support for free in a good
>>> old community fashion...
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I ONLY wrote what and I wrote and don't read other
>>> stuff into it. This (a binary release) IS something that is necessary to
>>> help grow the project, but with limited resources and most of those
>>> going into trying to stabilize development and contributions because
>>> most contributors write WAY more than they read and research... we are
>>> where we are, and it is what it is. To put it in more concrete terms: if
>>> I have to spend 20 hours a week researching stuff so people don't commit
>>> things that are inconsistent or difficult to manage or contradict or
>>> break things that exist, where do I get time to actually do
>>> administrative tasks like creating a binary release?
>>>
>>>> Also, given that the 3rd-party binaries (more than 50% of OFBiz
>>>> download size is *not* OFBiz codes!) is in the SVN, it is in the OFBiz
>>>> PMC's interest to lessen the load on the SVN server wherever possible.
>>> Nice try. Machines are machines and are cheap and easy to manage. People
>>> are people and are expensive and difficult to manage. It's that simple.
>>> If it makes things more difficult for developers it will hamper or kill
>>> the project.
>>>
>>> Not gonna happen, especially if we want it to be possible to have enough
>>> resources to put together a binary release anytime soon...
>>>
>>>> Just my 2 cents. I'm feeling very embarrassed for beating this topic
>>>> so much to death by now.
>>> Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things
>>> certainly change over time. Just don't be too surprised if I pull out
>>> every gun I can think of to argue against something that I think will be
>>> bad for the project, especially if I am re-writing the thoughts.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>
>

[BJ Freeman]

Well I am pulling my foot out of mouth a lot.
seems there is a sequence to do this and I have documented them
question is where to put them so someone else does not have to hunt them
down and stumble like me.


Jonathon -- Improov sent the following on 11/27/2007 6:02 PM:

> BJ has mentioned a few outstanding issues that could make the binary
> release look incomplete.
>
> Frankly, OFBiz 4.0 is far from complete, but not because it doesn't have
> anything more than half-baked features. It's because it has so many new
> features slapped on that are not fully implemented yet. OFBiz 4.0 has
> enough core features to be a fully functional release.
>
> While it is true that it would be good to remove those half-baked
> features (red herrings), it would take way too much time. Also, the
> effort would be destructive, not constructive. Would rather evolve OFBiz
> 4.0 into the 4.x family to complete those half-baked features over time.
>
> Also true that OFBiz 4.0, with its numerous new features that are
> half-baked, could make it look bad. If we already had *one* binary
> release, we could still use that binary release to continue collecting
> bug reports for the next release. But as it is now, we don't have a
> single binary release for OFBiz 4.0. With a binary release, chances are
> we will have more testers.
>
> Ok, I've done my bit for the "social aspect" of this binary release.
> What do the others think?
>
> David is right about one thing, definitely. If there are only few of us
> who respond to Jacques' social call for release discussion, then there
> isn't enough homework done (outstanding issues review and such) for a
> proper release. Any other issues we need to look at?
>
> (Thanks BJ, for highlighting the outstanding issues. Those fixes that
> are easy to do would likely be thrown into the release).
>
> Jonathon
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Jonathon, all,
>>
>> One day or another "we" will have to pass a vote about exposing
>> officially the release as tarball and such.
>> I guess one reason "we" don't do it as fast as you'd like is that it's
>> a one man process (David has exposed number of other reasons,
>> which you discussed below).
>> As David briefly explained (he talked about keys) there is a release
>> manager for each TLP (note the idea about technical and social
>> ones)
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-manager.
>>
>> And releases must follow certains guidelines
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice.
>> . I think we have achieved all the requirements regarding licence and
>> such
>> . There seems to be less and less bugs to back port and anyway this is
>> not a criteria as explained in links above.
>> . The documentation sounds pretty updated.
>>
>> But there is still some works to do :
>> . Prepare release announcements and advertising
>> . Create the tarballs (different types for Linux, Windows, etc.) as it
>> was done here
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Incubating+4.0.0+Test+Snapshot+Release
>> following
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-HowtodoOFBizReleaseRelatedTasks
>>
>> . Check all  points in the 1st 2 links above
>> . Launch an official vote (only PMC votes are binding)
>> . Certainly some points I forgot...
>>
>> By chance "we" should have been thru all this during incubation (see
>> snapshot release link above)
>>
>> So I think "we" are not so far from releasing. The main thing would be
>> to have more testing for the current release4.0, and
>> especially feedback from real production environments. Maybe we should
>> ask for this last point on user ML ?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> De : "Jonathon -- Improov" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to hear the 3
>>>>> letters "SVN"
>>>  >> when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
>>>
>>>  > There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the
>>> nature of
>>>  > OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that
>>> full-on
>>>  > customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it
>>> possible
>>>  > to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
>>>  > implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
>>>
>>> But isn't there value in mass market? The classic "funnel" structure?
>>>
>>> If 100 people knew about OFBiz, maybe 90 could get interested due to
>>> the easy download and install
>>> process. With SVN, maybe only 10!
>>>
>>> If 90 download OFBiz, maybe 9 will customize it themselves. The
>>> others might be interested enough
>>> to find help customizing it, if they see a polished or shrink-wrapped
>>> product (no half-implemented
>>> features that send them flying off cliff when they click on one). If
>>> OFBiz has many "red screens
>>> of death" (who coined this quote?) with most button clicks, maybe
>>> none of those non-techies will
>>> buy it.
>>>
>>> It's a numbers game. I don't think you need to pay much attention to
>>> the non-techie testers. Well,
>>> unless they submit bug reports, tons of it. But then, isn't that good
>>> for stabilizing the release
>>> branches of OFBiz?
>>>
>>> I was from sales and marketing before, so the funnel phenomenon is
>>> deeply entrenched. 9 rejections
>>> out of 10 is great result to me. That's why I'm still thinking that
>>> hitting 100 folks with binary
>>> release is still better than hitting 10 folks with SVN release. The
>>> top of the funnel has to be large.
>>>
>>>  > Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
>>>  > users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project
>>> forward.
>>>
>>> Then wouldn't we want more non-techie testers? The common complaint I
>>> hear is that there just
>>> isn't enough testers and bug reports for the release branch.
>>>
>>>  > In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
>>>  > company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
>>>
>>> Some want to own forks. I can't help that. As I had always said, this
>>> aspect of strategic planning
>>> for open source project like OFBiz is beyond me. I can't comment on
>>> this.
>>>
>>>  > the thought of having thousands of users who don't want to
>>> customize and
>>>  > don't contribute is REALLY scary. Imagine all of the complaints
>>> and problems
>>>  > that the current community isn't big or experienced enough to
>>> support for
>>>  > free in a good old community fashion...
>>>
>>> On other hand, what about the thought of having OFBiz 4.0 largely
>>> untested, and hardly a candidate
>>> for binary release even after a long year? Maybe a balance somewhere
>>> is good?
>>>
>>> I don't think the community is inadequate to handle every and any bug
>>> reports that can come in for
>>> OFBiz. If you're worried about making a bad first impression because
>>> we rolled out a largely
>>> clunky release, you gotta know that first impression was already
>>> formed even now. The fact that
>>> there's no binary release already gave many folks a first impression.
>>> It's always
>>> work-in-progress, and pain (in form of insulting bug reports if need
>>> be) is a good way to improve.
>>>
>>> I'll be upfront with you about my own struggles in this locale. To
>>> me, OFBiz is fighting against
>>> QuickBooks, NetBooks, NetSuite, even SAP. Time after time, my
>>> propositions with OFBiz loses
>>> against those polished products. The first impression was already
>>> formed. (So I'm forced to
>>> package OFBiz into a stable fork for them, unfortunately.)
>>>
>>> You got yourself, Al Byers, Andy, many others. And now even Adrian
>>> Crumm is becoming an expert in
>>> the Widget Engine. Sure, there is room for improvement everywhere.
>>> But I really don't think the
>>> community is inadequate in technical skill sets.
>>>
>>>  > To put it in more concrete terms: if I have to spend 20 hours a week
>>>  > researching stuff so people don't commit things that are
>>> inconsistent or
>>>  > difficult to manage or contradict or break things that exist,
>>> where do I get
>>>  > time to actually do administrative tasks like creating a binary
>>> release?
>>>
>>> I see. Is that why you think the community isn't ready for big-bang
>>> exposure?
>>>
>>> Fine. I'll learn whatever necessary to create correct and streamlined
>>> patches (I did). I'll read
>>> whatever I'm told to. Be strict about the coding conventions. If it
>>> will shave that time down from
>>> 20 hours to 2, be strict about it.
>>>
>>> Problem: bad contributions that require administrative overhead to
>>> screen and process
>>>
>>> Possible solution: certify contributors
>>>
>>> Sigh. Are we really that bad?
>>>
>>>  > Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things
>>> certainly
>>>  > change over time.
>>>
>>> Ok. I know, things will always change.
>>>
>>>  > Just don't be too surprised if I pull out every gun I can think of
>>> to argue
>>>  > against something that I think will be bad for the project,
>>> especially if I
>>>  > am re-writing the thoughts.
>>>
>>> If you didn't, I'd think the project is dead.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, seeing you manage the contributions going into
>>> OFBiz is a needed sign for
>>> many of us that things are moving along.
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The way we are doing it now, it's anal-retentive. It's like saying
>>>>> "wait, boss, one more bugfix, just one more", and saying that for a
>>>>> whole long year! I usually publish "release candidates" for my boss,
>>>>> let him test it, let him scream the bug reports to me, then release
>>>>> the next "release candidate" when he's gotten upset enough.
>>>> Maybe the way you are doing it now... "we" is going a little far...
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, next question. So why not just let the whole world test the moving
>>>>> OFBiz 4.0 branch? Why bother with publishing tarballs and release
>>>>> candidates? Here's a simple analogy. Try telling our bosses "boss, can
>>>>> you learn some SVN and test my bugfixes, so I don't have to prepare
>>>>> tarballs for you?". Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to
>>>>> hear the 3 letters "SVN" when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
>>>> There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the
>>>> nature of
>>>> OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on
>>>> customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible
>>>> to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
>>>> implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
>>>>
>>>> Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
>>>> users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward.
>>>> In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
>>>> company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
>>>>
>>>> So, we WANT people to use OFBiz from SVN. I don't know about the others
>>>> who are involved more actively in managing and moderating OFBiz (ie the
>>>> PMC members and committers), but for me the thought of having thousands
>>>> of users who don't want to customize and don't contribute is REALLY
>>>> scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems that the current
>>>> community isn't big or experienced enough to support for free in a good
>>>> old community fashion...
>>>>
>>>> Don't get me wrong, I ONLY wrote what and I wrote and don't read other
>>>> stuff into it. This (a binary release) IS something that is
>>>> necessary to
>>>> help grow the project, but with limited resources and most of those
>>>> going into trying to stabilize development and contributions because
>>>> most contributors write WAY more than they read and research... we are
>>>> where we are, and it is what it is. To put it in more concrete
>>>> terms: if
>>>> I have to spend 20 hours a week researching stuff so people don't
>>>> commit
>>>> things that are inconsistent or difficult to manage or contradict or
>>>> break things that exist, where do I get time to actually do
>>>> administrative tasks like creating a binary release?
>>>>
>>>>> Also, given that the 3rd-party binaries (more than 50% of OFBiz
>>>>> download size is *not* OFBiz codes!) is in the SVN, it is in the OFBiz
>>>>> PMC's interest to lessen the load on the SVN server wherever possible.
>>>> Nice try. Machines are machines and are cheap and easy to manage.
>>>> People
>>>> are people and are expensive and difficult to manage. It's that simple.
>>>> If it makes things more difficult for developers it will hamper or kill
>>>> the project.
>>>>
>>>> Not gonna happen, especially if we want it to be possible to have
>>>> enough
>>>> resources to put together a binary release anytime soon...
>>>>
>>>>> Just my 2 cents. I'm feeling very embarrassed for beating this topic
>>>>> so much to death by now.
>>>> Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things
>>>> certainly change over time. Just don't be too surprised if I pull out
>>>> every gun I can think of to argue against something that I think
>>>> will be
>>>> bad for the project, especially if I am re-writing the thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[David E Jones]

On Nov 27, 2007, at 7:02 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> BJ has mentioned a few outstanding issues that could make the binary  
> release look incomplete.
>
> Frankly, OFBiz 4.0 is far from complete, but not because it doesn't  
> have anything more than half-baked features. It's because it has so  
> many new features slapped on that are not fully implemented yet.  
> OFBiz 4.0 has enough core features to be a fully functional release.
>
> While it is true that it would be good to remove those half-baked  
> features (red herrings), it would take way too much time. Also, the  
> effort would be destructive, not constructive. Would rather evolve  
> OFBiz 4.0 into the 4.x family to complete those half-baked features  
> over time.
>
> Also true that OFBiz 4.0, with its numerous new features that are  
> half-baked, could make it look bad. If we already had *one* binary  
> release, we could still use that binary release to continue  
> collecting bug reports for the next release. But as it is now, we  
> don't have a single binary release for OFBiz 4.0. With a binary  
> release, chances are we will have more testers.

Being more specific is far more helpful, BTW, than generalities.

My thoughts on these though are:

1. I disagree, I think the assertion about half-baked is false; the  
feature set is what it is

2. I agree the idea of half baked features is a red-herring, and  
should be ignored ;) , in other words not necessarily key to the  
stability of the release

-David

[Jacques Le Roux]

BJ,

If I understand you well, Jira seems the best place

Jacques

De : "BJ Freeman" <[hidden email]>

> Well I am pulling my foot out of mouth a lot.
> seems there is a sequence to do this and I have documented them
> question is where to put them so someone else does not have to hunt them
> down and stumble like me.
>
>
> Jonathon -- Improov sent the following on 11/27/2007 6:02 PM:
> > BJ has mentioned a few outstanding issues that could make the binary
> > release look incomplete.
> >
> > Frankly, OFBiz 4.0 is far from complete, but not because it doesn't have
> > anything more than half-baked features. It's because it has so many new
> > features slapped on that are not fully implemented yet. OFBiz 4.0 has
> > enough core features to be a fully functional release.
> >
> > While it is true that it would be good to remove those half-baked
> > features (red herrings), it would take way too much time. Also, the
> > effort would be destructive, not constructive. Would rather evolve OFBiz
> > 4.0 into the 4.x family to complete those half-baked features over time.
> >
> > Also true that OFBiz 4.0, with its numerous new features that are
> > half-baked, could make it look bad. If we already had *one* binary
> > release, we could still use that binary release to continue collecting
> > bug reports for the next release. But as it is now, we don't have a
> > single binary release for OFBiz 4.0. With a binary release, chances are
> > we will have more testers.
> >
> > Ok, I've done my bit for the "social aspect" of this binary release.
> > What do the others think?
> >
> > David is right about one thing, definitely. If there are only few of us
> > who respond to Jacques' social call for release discussion, then there
> > isn't enough homework done (outstanding issues review and such) for a
> > proper release. Any other issues we need to look at?
> >
> > (Thanks BJ, for highlighting the outstanding issues. Those fixes that
> > are easy to do would likely be thrown into the release).
> >
> > Jonathon
> >
> > Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >> Jonathon, all,
> >>
> >> One day or another "we" will have to pass a vote about exposing
> >> officially the release as tarball and such.
> >> I guess one reason "we" don't do it as fast as you'd like is that it's
> >> a one man process (David has exposed number of other reasons,
> >> which you discussed below).
> >> As David briefly explained (he talked about keys) there is a release
> >> manager for each TLP (note the idea about technical and social
> >> ones)
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-manager.
> >>
> >> And releases must follow certains guidelines
> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice.
> >> . I think we have achieved all the requirements regarding licence and
> >> such
> >> . There seems to be less and less bugs to back port and anyway this is
> >> not a criteria as explained in links above.
> >> . The documentation sounds pretty updated.
> >>
> >> But there is still some works to do :
> >> . Prepare release announcements and advertising
> >> . Create the tarballs (different types for Linux, Windows, etc.) as it
> >> was done here
> >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Incubating+4.0.0+Test+Snapshot+Release
> >> following
> >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-HowtodoOFBizReleaseRelatedTasks
> >>
> >> . Check all  points in the 1st 2 links above
> >> . Launch an official vote (only PMC votes are binding)
> >> . Certainly some points I forgot...
> >>
> >> By chance "we" should have been thru all this during incubation (see
> >> snapshot release link above)
> >>
> >> So I think "we" are not so far from releasing. The main thing would be
> >> to have more testing for the current release4.0, and
> >> especially feedback from real production environments. Maybe we should
> >> ask for this last point on user ML ?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >>
> >> De : "Jonathon -- Improov" <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to hear the 3
> >>>>> letters "SVN"
> >>>  >> when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
> >>>
> >>>  > There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the
> >>> nature of
> >>>  > OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that
> >>> full-on
> >>>  > customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it
> >>> possible
> >>>  > to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
> >>>  > implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
> >>>
> >>> But isn't there value in mass market? The classic "funnel" structure?
> >>>
> >>> If 100 people knew about OFBiz, maybe 90 could get interested due to
> >>> the easy download and install
> >>> process. With SVN, maybe only 10!
> >>>
> >>> If 90 download OFBiz, maybe 9 will customize it themselves. The
> >>> others might be interested enough
> >>> to find help customizing it, if they see a polished or shrink-wrapped
> >>> product (no half-implemented
> >>> features that send them flying off cliff when they click on one). If
> >>> OFBiz has many "red screens
> >>> of death" (who coined this quote?) with most button clicks, maybe
> >>> none of those non-techies will
> >>> buy it.
> >>>
> >>> It's a numbers game. I don't think you need to pay much attention to
> >>> the non-techie testers. Well,
> >>> unless they submit bug reports, tons of it. But then, isn't that good
> >>> for stabilizing the release
> >>> branches of OFBiz?
> >>>
> >>> I was from sales and marketing before, so the funnel phenomenon is
> >>> deeply entrenched. 9 rejections
> >>> out of 10 is great result to me. That's why I'm still thinking that
> >>> hitting 100 folks with binary
> >>> release is still better than hitting 10 folks with SVN release. The
> >>> top of the funnel has to be large.
> >>>
> >>>  > Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
> >>>  > users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project
> >>> forward.
> >>>
> >>> Then wouldn't we want more non-techie testers? The common complaint I
> >>> hear is that there just
> >>> isn't enough testers and bug reports for the release branch.
> >>>
> >>>  > In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
> >>>  > company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
> >>>
> >>> Some want to own forks. I can't help that. As I had always said, this
> >>> aspect of strategic planning
> >>> for open source project like OFBiz is beyond me. I can't comment on
> >>> this.
> >>>
> >>>  > the thought of having thousands of users who don't want to
> >>> customize and
> >>>  > don't contribute is REALLY scary. Imagine all of the complaints
> >>> and problems
> >>>  > that the current community isn't big or experienced enough to
> >>> support for
> >>>  > free in a good old community fashion...
> >>>
> >>> On other hand, what about the thought of having OFBiz 4.0 largely
> >>> untested, and hardly a candidate
> >>> for binary release even after a long year? Maybe a balance somewhere
> >>> is good?
> >>>
> >>> I don't think the community is inadequate to handle every and any bug
> >>> reports that can come in for
> >>> OFBiz. If you're worried about making a bad first impression because
> >>> we rolled out a largely
> >>> clunky release, you gotta know that first impression was already
> >>> formed even now. The fact that
> >>> there's no binary release already gave many folks a first impression.
> >>> It's always
> >>> work-in-progress, and pain (in form of insulting bug reports if need
> >>> be) is a good way to improve.
> >>>
> >>> I'll be upfront with you about my own struggles in this locale. To
> >>> me, OFBiz is fighting against
> >>> QuickBooks, NetBooks, NetSuite, even SAP. Time after time, my
> >>> propositions with OFBiz loses
> >>> against those polished products. The first impression was already
> >>> formed. (So I'm forced to
> >>> package OFBiz into a stable fork for them, unfortunately.)
> >>>
> >>> You got yourself, Al Byers, Andy, many others. And now even Adrian
> >>> Crumm is becoming an expert in
> >>> the Widget Engine. Sure, there is room for improvement everywhere.
> >>> But I really don't think the
> >>> community is inadequate in technical skill sets.
> >>>
> >>>  > To put it in more concrete terms: if I have to spend 20 hours a week
> >>>  > researching stuff so people don't commit things that are
> >>> inconsistent or
> >>>  > difficult to manage or contradict or break things that exist,
> >>> where do I get
> >>>  > time to actually do administrative tasks like creating a binary
> >>> release?
> >>>
> >>> I see. Is that why you think the community isn't ready for big-bang
> >>> exposure?
> >>>
> >>> Fine. I'll learn whatever necessary to create correct and streamlined
> >>> patches (I did). I'll read
> >>> whatever I'm told to. Be strict about the coding conventions. If it
> >>> will shave that time down from
> >>> 20 hours to 2, be strict about it.
> >>>
> >>> Problem: bad contributions that require administrative overhead to
> >>> screen and process
> >>>
> >>> Possible solution: certify contributors
> >>>
> >>> Sigh. Are we really that bad?
> >>>
> >>>  > Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things
> >>> certainly
> >>>  > change over time.
> >>>
> >>> Ok. I know, things will always change.
> >>>
> >>>  > Just don't be too surprised if I pull out every gun I can think of
> >>> to argue
> >>>  > against something that I think will be bad for the project,
> >>> especially if I
> >>>  > am re-writing the thoughts.
> >>>
> >>> If you didn't, I'd think the project is dead.
> >>>
> >>> For what it's worth, seeing you manage the contributions going into
> >>> OFBiz is a needed sign for
> >>> many of us that things are moving along.
> >>>
> >>> Jonathon
> >>>
> >>> David E Jones wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The way we are doing it now, it's anal-retentive. It's like saying
> >>>>> "wait, boss, one more bugfix, just one more", and saying that for a
> >>>>> whole long year! I usually publish "release candidates" for my boss,
> >>>>> let him test it, let him scream the bug reports to me, then release
> >>>>> the next "release candidate" when he's gotten upset enough.
> >>>> Maybe the way you are doing it now... "we" is going a little far...
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ok, next question. So why not just let the whole world test the moving
> >>>>> OFBiz 4.0 branch? Why bother with publishing tarballs and release
> >>>>> candidates? Here's a simple analogy. Try telling our bosses "boss, can
> >>>>> you learn some SVN and test my bugfixes, so I don't have to prepare
> >>>>> tarballs for you?". Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to
> >>>>> hear the 3 letters "SVN" when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
> >>>> There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the
> >>>> nature of
> >>>> OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on
> >>>> customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible
> >>>> to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
> >>>> implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
> >>>> users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward.
> >>>> In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
> >>>> company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, we WANT people to use OFBiz from SVN. I don't know about the others
> >>>> who are involved more actively in managing and moderating OFBiz (ie the
> >>>> PMC members and committers), but for me the thought of having thousands
> >>>> of users who don't want to customize and don't contribute is REALLY
> >>>> scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems that the current
> >>>> community isn't big or experienced enough to support for free in a good
> >>>> old community fashion...
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't get me wrong, I ONLY wrote what and I wrote and don't read other
> >>>> stuff into it. This (a binary release) IS something that is
> >>>> necessary to
> >>>> help grow the project, but with limited resources and most of those
> >>>> going into trying to stabilize development and contributions because
> >>>> most contributors write WAY more than they read and research... we are
> >>>> where we are, and it is what it is. To put it in more concrete
> >>>> terms: if
> >>>> I have to spend 20 hours a week researching stuff so people don't
> >>>> commit
> >>>> things that are inconsistent or difficult to manage or contradict or
> >>>> break things that exist, where do I get time to actually do
> >>>> administrative tasks like creating a binary release?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Also, given that the 3rd-party binaries (more than 50% of OFBiz
> >>>>> download size is *not* OFBiz codes!) is in the SVN, it is in the OFBiz
> >>>>> PMC's interest to lessen the load on the SVN server wherever possible.
> >>>> Nice try. Machines are machines and are cheap and easy to manage.
> >>>> People
> >>>> are people and are expensive and difficult to manage. It's that simple.
> >>>> If it makes things more difficult for developers it will hamper or kill
> >>>> the project.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not gonna happen, especially if we want it to be possible to have
> >>>> enough
> >>>> resources to put together a binary release anytime soon...
> >>>>
> >>>>> Just my 2 cents. I'm feeling very embarrassed for beating this topic
> >>>>> so much to death by now.
> >>>> Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things
> >>>> certainly change over time. Just don't be too surprised if I pull out
> >>>> every gun I can think of to argue against something that I think
> >>>> will be
> >>>> bad for the project, especially if I am re-writing the thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> -David
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[BJ Freeman]

Thanks.
over on the User ML it was suggested I use the wiki.
so have created a User Document space there.


Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/28/2007 1:15 AM:

> BJ,
>
> If I understand you well, Jira seems the best place
>
> Jacques
>
> De : "BJ Freeman" <[hidden email]>
>> Well I am pulling my foot out of mouth a lot.
>> seems there is a sequence to do this and I have documented them
>> question is where to put them so someone else does not have to hunt them
>> down and stumble like me.
>>
>>
>> Jonathon -- Improov sent the following on 11/27/2007 6:02 PM:
>>> BJ has mentioned a few outstanding issues that could make the binary
>>> release look incomplete.
>>>
>>> Frankly, OFBiz 4.0 is far from complete, but not because it doesn't have
>>> anything more than half-baked features. It's because it has so many new
>>> features slapped on that are not fully implemented yet. OFBiz 4.0 has
>>> enough core features to be a fully functional release.
>>>
>>> While it is true that it would be good to remove those half-baked
>>> features (red herrings), it would take way too much time. Also, the
>>> effort would be destructive, not constructive. Would rather evolve OFBiz
>>> 4.0 into the 4.x family to complete those half-baked features over time.
>>>
>>> Also true that OFBiz 4.0, with its numerous new features that are
>>> half-baked, could make it look bad. If we already had *one* binary
>>> release, we could still use that binary release to continue collecting
>>> bug reports for the next release. But as it is now, we don't have a
>>> single binary release for OFBiz 4.0. With a binary release, chances are
>>> we will have more testers.
>>>
>>> Ok, I've done my bit for the "social aspect" of this binary release.
>>> What do the others think?
>>>
>>> David is right about one thing, definitely. If there are only few of us
>>> who respond to Jacques' social call for release discussion, then there
>>> isn't enough homework done (outstanding issues review and such) for a
>>> proper release. Any other issues we need to look at?
>>>
>>> (Thanks BJ, for highlighting the outstanding issues. Those fixes that
>>> are easy to do would likely be thrown into the release).
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> Jonathon, all,
>>>>
>>>> One day or another "we" will have to pass a vote about exposing
>>>> officially the release as tarball and such.
>>>> I guess one reason "we" don't do it as fast as you'd like is that it's
>>>> a one man process (David has exposed number of other reasons,
>>>> which you discussed below).
>>>> As David briefly explained (he talked about keys) there is a release
>>>> manager for each TLP (note the idea about technical and social
>>>> ones)
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-manager.
>>>>
>>>> And releases must follow certains guidelines
>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice.
>>>> . I think we have achieved all the requirements regarding licence and
>>>> such
>>>> . There seems to be less and less bugs to back port and anyway this is
>>>> not a criteria as explained in links above.
>>>> . The documentation sounds pretty updated.
>>>>
>>>> But there is still some works to do :
>>>> . Prepare release announcements and advertising
>>>> . Create the tarballs (different types for Linux, Windows, etc.) as it
>>>> was done here
>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Incubating+4.0.0+Test+Snapshot+Release
>>>> following
>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-HowtodoOFBizReleaseRelatedTasks
>>>>
>>>> . Check all  points in the 1st 2 links above
>>>> . Launch an official vote (only PMC votes are binding)
>>>> . Certainly some points I forgot...
>>>>
>>>> By chance "we" should have been thru all this during incubation (see
>>>> snapshot release link above)
>>>>
>>>> So I think "we" are not so far from releasing. The main thing would be
>>>> to have more testing for the current release4.0, and
>>>> especially feedback from real production environments. Maybe we should
>>>> ask for this last point on user ML ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> De : "Jonathon -- Improov" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to hear the 3
>>>>>>> letters "SVN"
>>>>>  >> when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
>>>>>
>>>>>  > There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the
>>>>> nature of
>>>>>  > OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that
>>>>> full-on
>>>>>  > customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it
>>>>> possible
>>>>>  > to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
>>>>>  > implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
>>>>>
>>>>> But isn't there value in mass market? The classic "funnel" structure?
>>>>>
>>>>> If 100 people knew about OFBiz, maybe 90 could get interested due to
>>>>> the easy download and install
>>>>> process. With SVN, maybe only 10!
>>>>>
>>>>> If 90 download OFBiz, maybe 9 will customize it themselves. The
>>>>> others might be interested enough
>>>>> to find help customizing it, if they see a polished or shrink-wrapped
>>>>> product (no half-implemented
>>>>> features that send them flying off cliff when they click on one). If
>>>>> OFBiz has many "red screens
>>>>> of death" (who coined this quote?) with most button clicks, maybe
>>>>> none of those non-techies will
>>>>> buy it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a numbers game. I don't think you need to pay much attention to
>>>>> the non-techie testers. Well,
>>>>> unless they submit bug reports, tons of it. But then, isn't that good
>>>>> for stabilizing the release
>>>>> branches of OFBiz?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was from sales and marketing before, so the funnel phenomenon is
>>>>> deeply entrenched. 9 rejections
>>>>> out of 10 is great result to me. That's why I'm still thinking that
>>>>> hitting 100 folks with binary
>>>>> release is still better than hitting 10 folks with SVN release. The
>>>>> top of the funnel has to be large.
>>>>>
>>>>>  > Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
>>>>>  > users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project
>>>>> forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then wouldn't we want more non-techie testers? The common complaint I
>>>>> hear is that there just
>>>>> isn't enough testers and bug reports for the release branch.
>>>>>
>>>>>  > In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
>>>>>  > company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some want to own forks. I can't help that. As I had always said, this
>>>>> aspect of strategic planning
>>>>> for open source project like OFBiz is beyond me. I can't comment on
>>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>>  > the thought of having thousands of users who don't want to
>>>>> customize and
>>>>>  > don't contribute is REALLY scary. Imagine all of the complaints
>>>>> and problems
>>>>>  > that the current community isn't big or experienced enough to
>>>>> support for
>>>>>  > free in a good old community fashion...
>>>>>
>>>>> On other hand, what about the thought of having OFBiz 4.0 largely
>>>>> untested, and hardly a candidate
>>>>> for binary release even after a long year? Maybe a balance somewhere
>>>>> is good?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think the community is inadequate to handle every and any bug
>>>>> reports that can come in for
>>>>> OFBiz. If you're worried about making a bad first impression because
>>>>> we rolled out a largely
>>>>> clunky release, you gotta know that first impression was already
>>>>> formed even now. The fact that
>>>>> there's no binary release already gave many folks a first impression.
>>>>> It's always
>>>>> work-in-progress, and pain (in form of insulting bug reports if need
>>>>> be) is a good way to improve.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll be upfront with you about my own struggles in this locale. To
>>>>> me, OFBiz is fighting against
>>>>> QuickBooks, NetBooks, NetSuite, even SAP. Time after time, my
>>>>> propositions with OFBiz loses
>>>>> against those polished products. The first impression was already
>>>>> formed. (So I'm forced to
>>>>> package OFBiz into a stable fork for them, unfortunately.)
>>>>>
>>>>> You got yourself, Al Byers, Andy, many others. And now even Adrian
>>>>> Crumm is becoming an expert in
>>>>> the Widget Engine. Sure, there is room for improvement everywhere.
>>>>> But I really don't think the
>>>>> community is inadequate in technical skill sets.
>>>>>
>>>>>  > To put it in more concrete terms: if I have to spend 20 hours a week
>>>>>  > researching stuff so people don't commit things that are
>>>>> inconsistent or
>>>>>  > difficult to manage or contradict or break things that exist,
>>>>> where do I get
>>>>>  > time to actually do administrative tasks like creating a binary
>>>>> release?
>>>>>
>>>>> I see. Is that why you think the community isn't ready for big-bang
>>>>> exposure?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine. I'll learn whatever necessary to create correct and streamlined
>>>>> patches (I did). I'll read
>>>>> whatever I'm told to. Be strict about the coding conventions. If it
>>>>> will shave that time down from
>>>>> 20 hours to 2, be strict about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Problem: bad contributions that require administrative overhead to
>>>>> screen and process
>>>>>
>>>>> Possible solution: certify contributors
>>>>>
>>>>> Sigh. Are we really that bad?
>>>>>
>>>>>  > Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things
>>>>> certainly
>>>>>  > change over time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok. I know, things will always change.
>>>>>
>>>>>  > Just don't be too surprised if I pull out every gun I can think of
>>>>> to argue
>>>>>  > against something that I think will be bad for the project,
>>>>> especially if I
>>>>>  > am re-writing the thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you didn't, I'd think the project is dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> For what it's worth, seeing you manage the contributions going into
>>>>> OFBiz is a needed sign for
>>>>> many of us that things are moving along.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The way we are doing it now, it's anal-retentive. It's like saying
>>>>>>> "wait, boss, one more bugfix, just one more", and saying that for a
>>>>>>> whole long year! I usually publish "release candidates" for my boss,
>>>>>>> let him test it, let him scream the bug reports to me, then release
>>>>>>> the next "release candidate" when he's gotten upset enough.
>>>>>> Maybe the way you are doing it now... "we" is going a little far...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, next question. So why not just let the whole world test the moving
>>>>>>> OFBiz 4.0 branch? Why bother with publishing tarballs and release
>>>>>>> candidates? Here's a simple analogy. Try telling our bosses "boss, can
>>>>>>> you learn some SVN and test my bugfixes, so I don't have to prepare
>>>>>>> tarballs for you?". Perhaps a good 99% of the population don't want to
>>>>>>> hear the 3 letters "SVN" when they attempt to download and test OFBiz.
>>>>>> There is certainly a target audience in that. But consider the
>>>>>> nature of
>>>>>> OFBiz: it is most commonly used by developers or analysts that full-on
>>>>>> customize or at least significantly configure OFBiz to make it possible
>>>>>> to use in their businesses. It just isn't designed and hasn't been
>>>>>> implemented for OOTB (out-of-the-box) use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also consider that what we really need for a strong community is for
>>>>>> users to offer feedback and contributions to move the project forward.
>>>>>> In fact that is the ONLY way that OFBiz moves forward as there is no
>>>>>> company that owns or sponsors OFBiz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, we WANT people to use OFBiz from SVN. I don't know about the others
>>>>>> who are involved more actively in managing and moderating OFBiz (ie the
>>>>>> PMC members and committers), but for me the thought of having thousands
>>>>>> of users who don't want to customize and don't contribute is REALLY
>>>>>> scary. Imagine all of the complaints and problems that the current
>>>>>> community isn't big or experienced enough to support for free in a good
>>>>>> old community fashion...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't get me wrong, I ONLY wrote what and I wrote and don't read other
>>>>>> stuff into it. This (a binary release) IS something that is
>>>>>> necessary to
>>>>>> help grow the project, but with limited resources and most of those
>>>>>> going into trying to stabilize development and contributions because
>>>>>> most contributors write WAY more than they read and research... we are
>>>>>> where we are, and it is what it is. To put it in more concrete
>>>>>> terms: if
>>>>>> I have to spend 20 hours a week researching stuff so people don't
>>>>>> commit
>>>>>> things that are inconsistent or difficult to manage or contradict or
>>>>>> break things that exist, where do I get time to actually do
>>>>>> administrative tasks like creating a binary release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, given that the 3rd-party binaries (more than 50% of OFBiz
>>>>>>> download size is *not* OFBiz codes!) is in the SVN, it is in the OFBiz
>>>>>>> PMC's interest to lessen the load on the SVN server wherever possible.
>>>>>> Nice try. Machines are machines and are cheap and easy to manage.
>>>>>> People
>>>>>> are people and are expensive and difficult to manage. It's that simple.
>>>>>> If it makes things more difficult for developers it will hamper or kill
>>>>>> the project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not gonna happen, especially if we want it to be possible to have
>>>>>> enough
>>>>>> resources to put together a binary release anytime soon...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents. I'm feeling very embarrassed for beating this topic
>>>>>>> so much to death by now.
>>>>>> Your comments are always welcome. Feel free to re-hash too, things
>>>>>> certainly change over time. Just don't be too surprised if I pull out
>>>>>> every gun I can think of to argue against something that I think
>>>>>> will be
>>>>>> bad for the project, especially if I am re-writing the thoughts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>