http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Workeffort-Bug-vs-New-Feature-tp181847p181854.html
To be clear, I didn't review this thoroughly to see what was working or not and how the problem impacted things.
I didn't say leave it out, I just said be careful about the which side of the line we decide to put things.
> Jacopo,
>
> I'm relaxed and positive. I'm just being what Americans call "snarky."
> Hence the ;)
>
> Here's another one in case anyone missed it
>
> ;)
>
> -Adrian
>
>
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Adrian,
>>
>> in my opinion OFBIZ-1069 could go in the release; OFBIZ-1079 should not.
>> However I really think that it is very important to maintain a
>> relaxed, positive and constructive attitude between us especially when
>> we disagree or have different opinion.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The primary goal of a release branch is to stabilize current
>>>> functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Generally a very important part of that is to not introduce new
>>>> functionality that might cause new bugs. That doesn't mean
>>>> everything one might want or that might be implied in the data model
>>>> or other parts of the system will work as expected, it just means
>>>> that everything that IS implemented will function.
>>>>
>>>> Some things are difficult to decide on, but remember the first
>>>> priority is stabilization.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Moving this to a new thread. I apologize for the threadjack Scott.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm puzzled. A Workeffort screen displays a calendar incorrectly
>>>>> and I submit a patch that fixes it. How is that a new feature?
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds to me like bug fixes are okay as long as they don't
>>>>> introduce new code. What if fixing a bug requires new code?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15/06/07, Tim Ruppert <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Then I guess it depends on whether or not the rest of the fix is
>>>>> indeed
>>>>> > fixing a bug or new features :)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Cheers,
>>>>> > Tim
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Tim Ruppert
>>>>> > HotWax Media
>>>>> >
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com>>>>> >
>>>>> > o:801.649.6594
>>>>> > f:801.649.6595
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Jun 14, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > From my perspective, having two 4ths and only 29 days in
>>>>> November is a
>>>>> > bug.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I don't know... that's a fairly big change and in a very real way
>>>>> > supporting DST changes is a new feature...
>>>>> > That's my opinion anyway. Doesn't this also depend on a fair
>>>>> amount of
>>>>> > other new functionality?
>>>>> > -David
>>>>> > Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Scott,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This isn't already committed, but it needs to go into both -
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1069>>>>> >
>>>>> > -Adrian
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hi All,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'll be reviewing the last fortnight's trunk commits for merging
>>>>> back to
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > release branch tonight, so if anyone knows of any trunk commits
>>>>> that
>>>>> > should
>>>>> > be merged it would be great if you could post them here.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks
>>>>> > Scott
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>