http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Workeffort-Bug-vs-New-Feature-tp181847p181859.html
Nothing wrong with a bit of sarcastic humor. I'm sure we can all take it.
> 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>