> Being more specific is far more helpful, BTW, than generalities.
Specifically, some of the DTDs contain stuff that are not yet implemented. The recent one that
comes to mind: I asked about <action> in <menu-item>, I think. And BJ also highlighted 1 or 2
issues. Probably more coming up as I run through the codes this coming month.
Doesn't help to deny stuff, always boomerangs back to me straight from the clients. Better to call
things what they are. Sales can be.. so difficult and frustrating.
About stability, you are absolutely right. OFBiz is very stable (as is many other highly active
open source community projects).
Maybe being very strict about not putting in non-bug fixes into release branches will help remove
those "doors that open to hanging cliffs". Just as how you've been strict about it lately.
Jonathon
David E Jones wrote:
>
> 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
>
Locked
