Posted by
jonwimp on
Jun 15, 2007; 6:53am
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Workeffort-Bug-vs-New-Feature-tp181847p181851.html
This is one of those bugfixes that are non-trivial (involving new components and supporting
codes?). It should take as much work to put into OFBiz 4.0 branch as it did to commit it to trunk.
Unless...
Unless it is one of those bugs that are not _exactly_ present in the OFBiz 4.0 branch. If it is
one of these, someone will need to do some human intervention and reading of both branches to
"massage" the bugfix into OFBiz 4.0 branch. I doubt it is a bug or bugfix of this sort?
Granted, the required new components and supporting codes may themselves introduce destabilizing
bugs into 4.0 branch. If this is the case, the next best thing, really, is simply to: Fix the
29-day bug in OFBiz 4.0 branch _with_ the branch's own components and supporting codes, and _not_
pull in the bugfix (nor the supporting codes) from trunk at all. In this case, I think the trunk's
bugfix can easily educate us on how to "recreate" the bugfix in the 4.0 branch. (I vote for this
approach.)
Hope that clears things up more than muddle stuff up. I'm one of the guilty ones who pushed for a
stabilizing branch release, kicking and screaming about it.
Jonathon
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 04:14:18 pm Adrian Crum wrote:
>> In other words, it's okay for the system to function incorrectly, as long
>> as it consistently functions incorrectly.
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> If you prefer to keep the Workeffort calendar broken, that's fine with me.
>> When new users ask why release version 4 has only 29 days in November, I
>> can point them to this discussion and let them know that November 30th was
>> a new feature that didn't make it into the release.
>
> Ha! Ha ha! Well played.
>
> I haven't read this patch but it seems like this bug makes us look rather
> foolish. I'd vote +1 for that going in even though we are in a freeze, if I
> was the voting type.
>
> Seems like the screen already exists so this isn't "new" even if the
> implementation is moves around a little. Any new bugs would have to do be
> pretty significant to compete with a 29 day November.
>