http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Workeffort-Bug-vs-New-Feature-tp181847p181858.html
>
> Jacopo,
>
> You are absolutely right. OFBIZ-1079 is still a work in progress and that
> is clearly a new feature -
> no argument there.
>
> Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding on the list, I'm only
> referring to OFBIZ-1069 - not
> any of the other improvements I've mentioned in the past.
>
> -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
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>