OFBiz › OFBiz - Dev
Login  Register

Re: Workeffort Bug vs New Feature

Posted by Tim Ruppert on Jun 14, 2007; 10:30pm
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Workeffort-Bug-vs-New-Feature-tp181847p181855.html

I'm American, but thank god I've never been referred to as "snarky" :)

+1 on Jacopo's comments about the release.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

On Jun 14, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

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
 >
 > 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 -
 >
 >
 > -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
 >
 >
 >
 >





smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment
Free forum by Nabble Edit this page