Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
Locked
12
12
Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
 
|
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
Another one would be what's going on with BIRT.
+1 on voting on each of these. Cheers, Ruppert -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 On Nov 26, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > Lately there there have been some discussions about making big > changes to the trunk. I would like to suggest that we summarize > those proposed changes, create a voting thread for each change, and > then send a friendly announcement to the user mailing list about the > proposed changes that won the vote. > > In the USA we are in the midst of a major holiday, so we need to > give others plenty of time to respond. So, how about this: let's > list our proposed changes in this thread and wait a few days for > responses. Sometime next week we can start the voting threads. About > a week after that, summarize the voting results and send an > announcement to the user mailing list. What do you think? > > To get things started, here are the proposed changes I am aware of: > > 1. Require Java 6 > > 2. Remove Cloudscape support > > 3. Remove the Shark component > > Feel free to add others to the list. > > -Adrian > > > > |
smime.p7s (3K)
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-2
-1, I think the system we have in place now works just fine. This
discussion might be warranted if we've been having problems with people committing major changes to the framework without adequate discussion but that hasn't been happening and I don't think it's going to. I think all OFBiz committers have a good understanding of what is appropriate and we're all pretty good at reaching a consensus before making major changes. I do agree with reiterating the importance of discussing major changes in depth and reaching a consensus before committing though. Regards Scott On 27/11/2009, at 4:37 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > Lately there there have been some discussions about making big > changes to the trunk. I would like to suggest that we summarize > those proposed changes, create a voting thread for each change, and > then send a friendly announcement to the user mailing list about the > proposed changes that won the vote. > > In the USA we are in the midst of a major holiday, so we need to > give others plenty of time to respond. So, how about this: let's > list our proposed changes in this thread and wait a few days for > responses. Sometime next week we can start the voting threads. About > a week after that, summarize the voting results and send an > announcement to the user mailing list. What do you think? > > To get things started, here are the proposed changes I am aware of: > > 1. Require Java 6 > > 2. Remove Cloudscape support > > 3. Remove the Shark component > > Feel free to add others to the list. > > -Adrian > > > > |
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
In reply to this post by Erwan de FERRIERES-3
Hi Erwan,
I don't really consider upgrading JUnit to be a major change, do you? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 27/11/2009, at 5:22 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: > +1 on voting. > > One another proposal would be to update junit, as I saw on a mail. > > > Le 26/11/2009 16:37, Adrian Crum a écrit : >> Lately there there have been some discussions about making big >> changes to the trunk. I would like to suggest that we summarize >> those proposed changes, create a voting thread for each change, and >> then send a friendly announcement to the user mailing list about >> the proposed changes that won the vote. >> >> In the USA we are in the midst of a major holiday, so we need to >> give others plenty of time to respond. So, how about this: let's >> list our proposed changes in this thread and wait a few days for >> responses. Sometime next week we can start the voting threads. >> About a week after that, summarize the voting results and send an >> announcement to the user mailing list. What do you think? >> >> To get things started, here are the proposed changes I am aware of: >> >> 1. Require Java 6 >> >> 2. Remove Cloudscape support >> >> 3. Remove the Shark component >> >> Feel free to add others to the list. >> >> -Adrian >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Erwan |
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
Sorry if I was unclear, what I am against is increasing the scope of
changes that would require a vote, as I mentioned I don't think that would be necessary since we haven't really had any bad experiences so far that would make it worth considering. I'm 100% in favor of votes for the changes that would normally require a vote such as the two items you mentioned i.e. #1 and #3 but I don't agree with voting on #2 (based on the current state of the discussion). I also don't agree with Tim's request that birt be voted on, the reason being that I think everyone is in favor of it being incorporated into OFBiz, the only issues are of a licensing nature which prevent it from being committed regardless of any vote. And lastly I don't agree with Erwan's suggestion that a simple JUnit library upgrade should be voted upon. So I was saying lets keep things the way they are, everyone is pretty good at following protocol but by all means reiterate the importance of following that protocol. Regards Scott On 27/11/2009, at 10:26 AM, David E Jones wrote: > > If I understand right you (Scott) are talking about the procedural > proposal. Right now the typical process, if a vote is needed and/or > desired, is to have a 72-hour voting period, unless there are enough > positive PMC votes before to make it pass regardless of possible > negative votes. > > In any case, voting on these topics is probably a good idea, well at > least for #1 since it is a change that may impact many people (even > though in the discussion in seemed pretty supported), and #3 since > there wasn't so much unanimity. > > -David > > > On Nov 26, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> -1, I think the system we have in place now works just fine. This >> discussion might be warranted if we've been having problems with >> people committing major changes to the framework without adequate >> discussion but that hasn't been happening and I don't think it's >> going to. I think all OFBiz committers have a good understanding >> of what is appropriate and we're all pretty good at reaching a >> consensus before making major changes. >> >> I do agree with reiterating the importance of discussing major >> changes in depth and reaching a consensus before committing though. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 27/11/2009, at 4:37 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> Lately there there have been some discussions about making big >>> changes to the trunk. I would like to suggest that we summarize >>> those proposed changes, create a voting thread for each change, >>> and then send a friendly announcement to the user mailing list >>> about the proposed changes that won the vote. >>> >>> In the USA we are in the midst of a major holiday, so we need to >>> give others plenty of time to respond. So, how about this: let's >>> list our proposed changes in this thread and wait a few days for >>> responses. Sometime next week we can start the voting threads. >>> About a week after that, summarize the voting results and send an >>> announcement to the user mailing list. What do you think? >>> >>> To get things started, here are the proposed changes I am aware of: >>> >>> 1. Require Java 6 >>> >>> 2. Remove Cloudscape support >>> >>> 3. Remove the Shark component >>> >>> Feel free to add others to the list. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > |
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
Well ... since we just voted on #1 - I guess we should think about
whether or not Cloudscape or Shark should continue to be supported. As for BIRT - this was something we were already discussing - which is why it was added. If I count correctly - that's already being voted on already as well - three -1s, so ... leave it off of whatever lists you like, but they are still important topics. Sounds like there isn't a change here IMO - only someone simply saying, "Here are things that are being voted on or should be voted on - let's vote." Whatever the case, it should be discussed and voted on whether or not we should remove those two components. In lieu of the other information around them - I'm a +1 for removal of both (since the upgrade path on both is impossible) - unless there are people in the community actively using it and wanting to maintain it going forward. Cheers, Ruppert -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 On Nov 26, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > Sorry if I was unclear, what I am against is increasing the scope of > changes that would require a vote, as I mentioned I don't think that > would be necessary since we haven't really had any bad experiences > so far that would make it worth considering. > > I'm 100% in favor of votes for the changes that would normally > require a vote such as the two items you mentioned i.e. #1 and #3 > but I don't agree with voting on #2 (based on the current state of > the discussion). I also don't agree with Tim's request that birt be > voted on, the reason being that I think everyone is in favor of it > being incorporated into OFBiz, the only issues are of a licensing > nature which prevent it from being committed regardless of any > vote. And lastly I don't agree with Erwan's suggestion that a > simple JUnit library upgrade should be voted upon. > > So I was saying lets keep things the way they are, everyone is > pretty good at following protocol but by all means reiterate the > importance of following that protocol. > > Regards > Scott > > On 27/11/2009, at 10:26 AM, David E Jones wrote: > >> >> If I understand right you (Scott) are talking about the procedural >> proposal. Right now the typical process, if a vote is needed and/or >> desired, is to have a 72-hour voting period, unless there are >> enough positive PMC votes before to make it pass regardless of >> possible negative votes. >> >> In any case, voting on these topics is probably a good idea, well >> at least for #1 since it is a change that may impact many people >> (even though in the discussion in seemed pretty supported), and #3 >> since there wasn't so much unanimity. >> >> -David >> >> >> On Nov 26, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >> >>> -1, I think the system we have in place now works just fine. This >>> discussion might be warranted if we've been having problems with >>> people committing major changes to the framework without adequate >>> discussion but that hasn't been happening and I don't think it's >>> going to. I think all OFBiz committers have a good understanding >>> of what is appropriate and we're all pretty good at reaching a >>> consensus before making major changes. >>> >>> I do agree with reiterating the importance of discussing major >>> changes in depth and reaching a consensus before committing though. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> On 27/11/2009, at 4:37 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> >>>> Lately there there have been some discussions about making big >>>> changes to the trunk. I would like to suggest that we summarize >>>> those proposed changes, create a voting thread for each change, >>>> and then send a friendly announcement to the user mailing list >>>> about the proposed changes that won the vote. >>>> >>>> In the USA we are in the midst of a major holiday, so we need to >>>> give others plenty of time to respond. So, how about this: let's >>>> list our proposed changes in this thread and wait a few days for >>>> responses. Sometime next week we can start the voting threads. >>>> About a week after that, summarize the voting results and send an >>>> announcement to the user mailing list. What do you think? >>>> >>>> To get things started, here are the proposed changes I am aware of: >>>> >>>> 1. Require Java 6 >>>> >>>> 2. Remove Cloudscape support >>>> >>>> 3. Remove the Shark component >>>> >>>> Feel free to add others to the list. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > |
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
Just so this isn't misunderstood - the three -1s for BIRT are all
because of the licensing issues - not that people don't want to see it in the project yet. Cheers, Ruppert -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 On Nov 26, 2009, at 11:48 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote: > As for BIRT - this was something we were already discussing - which > is why it was added. If I count correctly - that's already being > voted on already as well - three -1s |
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
Administrator
|
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
In reply to this post by Tim Ruppert
This may be where I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself :-)
When I speak of a vote, I'm referring to a formal binding vote that follows the ASF protocols (as David described below). In the past this has only been necessary for the creation of release branches and for major changes that have even the slightest disagreement or minor changes that have major disagreement. In that context: 1. Require Java 6 - So far there has been discussion and everyone involved has now agreed to the change. I think the user list should be notified of the proposal before setting anything in stone but if we don't see any strong objections then I don't personally think a formal vote should be necessary. - Major change, formal vote if there is any disagreement 2. Remove Cloudscape support - No disagreement so far but possibly worth mentioning on the user list but I don't think of this as a major change and in the extremely unlikely event that someone wants to use Cloudscape in the future then they can still get the files out of the svn history and bring them up to speed with the trunk fairly easily. - Minor change, formal vote if there are major disagreements 3. Remove Shark - This is a tough one because unlike Cloudscape the Shark Engine is still alive and well outside of OFBiz and the odds are a little higher that someone may want to use it in the future. Also because no one is using it right now (that we know of) there is no one to come out strongly in its defense. My personal opinion is that it does almost no harm to keep it in the project and who knows, at some point in the future having it there may sway a company to become involved in OFBiz where they otherwise wouldn't have and while a good portion of companies that use OFBiz don't really get involved in the community and contribute, a single company deciding to do so can have a major impact on the level of contributions coming in to the project. So I feel that even if it is neglected, it is still a feature of sorts and for this reason I would be a -1 for removal and if people are really concerned about maintaining it then I would gladly offer to check in on the component every now and again to make sure it will still compile. - Major change, formal vote needed 4. Add Birt to the trunk - This is really a non-issue because it simply cannot be added in its current state even if a formal vote concluded with +1000. - Not yet ready to be a change, may require a vote if disagreement remains (This is probably what you were getting at Tim, where the component shouldn't be committed until some sort of community consensus is reached, be it through a formal vote or simple discussion) So in conclusion I think that what you are calling a vote is just good community discussion (that happens to include +1s and -1s) which I am wholeheartedly in favor of, rather than formal votes which I feel should be used only when our discussions fail to reach a consensus. In my original email I thought Adrian wanted to move the line where discussion ends and a formal vote begins and it was this concept that I was against (if that's even what he meant). Regards Scott On 27/11/2009, at 7:48 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote: > Well ... since we just voted on #1 - I guess we should think about > whether or not Cloudscape or Shark should continue to be supported. > As for BIRT - this was something we were already discussing - which > is why it was added. If I count correctly - that's already being > voted on already as well - three -1s, so ... leave it off of > whatever lists you like, but they are still important topics. > > Sounds like there isn't a change here IMO - only someone simply > saying, "Here are things that are being voted on or should be voted > on - let's vote." Whatever the case, it should be discussed and > voted on whether or not we should remove those two components. In > lieu of the other information around them - I'm a +1 for removal of > both (since the upgrade path on both is impossible) - unless there > are people in the community actively using it and wanting to > maintain it going forward. > > Cheers, > Ruppert > -- > Tim Ruppert > HotWax Media > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > o:801.649.6594 > f:801.649.6595 > > On Nov 26, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> Sorry if I was unclear, what I am against is increasing the scope >> of changes that would require a vote, as I mentioned I don't think >> that would be necessary since we haven't really had any bad >> experiences so far that would make it worth considering. >> >> I'm 100% in favor of votes for the changes that would normally >> require a vote such as the two items you mentioned i.e. #1 and #3 >> but I don't agree with voting on #2 (based on the current state of >> the discussion). I also don't agree with Tim's request that birt >> be voted on, the reason being that I think everyone is in favor of >> it being incorporated into OFBiz, the only issues are of a >> licensing nature which prevent it from being committed regardless >> of any vote. And lastly I don't agree with Erwan's suggestion that >> a simple JUnit library upgrade should be voted upon. >> >> So I was saying lets keep things the way they are, everyone is >> pretty good at following protocol but by all means reiterate the >> importance of following that protocol. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 27/11/2009, at 10:26 AM, David E Jones wrote: >> >>> >>> If I understand right you (Scott) are talking about the procedural >>> proposal. Right now the typical process, if a vote is needed and/ >>> or desired, is to have a 72-hour voting period, unless there are >>> enough positive PMC votes before to make it pass regardless of >>> possible negative votes. >>> >>> In any case, voting on these topics is probably a good idea, well >>> at least for #1 since it is a change that may impact many people >>> (even though in the discussion in seemed pretty supported), and #3 >>> since there wasn't so much unanimity. >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> On Nov 26, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >>> >>>> -1, I think the system we have in place now works just fine. >>>> This discussion might be warranted if we've been having problems >>>> with people committing major changes to the framework without >>>> adequate discussion but that hasn't been happening and I don't >>>> think it's going to. I think all OFBiz committers have a good >>>> understanding of what is appropriate and we're all pretty good at >>>> reaching a consensus before making major changes. >>>> >>>> I do agree with reiterating the importance of discussing major >>>> changes in depth and reaching a consensus before committing though. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 27/11/2009, at 4:37 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lately there there have been some discussions about making big >>>>> changes to the trunk. I would like to suggest that we summarize >>>>> those proposed changes, create a voting thread for each change, >>>>> and then send a friendly announcement to the user mailing list >>>>> about the proposed changes that won the vote. >>>>> >>>>> In the USA we are in the midst of a major holiday, so we need to >>>>> give others plenty of time to respond. So, how about this: let's >>>>> list our proposed changes in this thread and wait a few days for >>>>> responses. Sometime next week we can start the voting threads. >>>>> About a week after that, summarize the voting results and send >>>>> an announcement to the user mailing list. What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> To get things started, here are the proposed changes I am aware >>>>> of: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Require Java 6 >>>>> >>>>> 2. Remove Cloudscape support >>>>> >>>>> 3. Remove the Shark component >>>>> >>>>> Feel free to add others to the list. >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
> 5. Is there a specific reason for keeping Old entities in trunk?
> Trunk users should be already using the migration services and new > entities? > > Bilgin Hi Bilgin, I've never written a migration service, but aren't they dependent upon the old entity definitions being present? I do agree though that we need to come up with a timeframe for their removal at some point. Regards Scott |
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
Administrator
|
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
Administrator
|
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
Re: Discussion: Summarize Proposed Trunk Changes
|
|
That makes perfect sense, thanks Adrian for clarifying and yes I am
completely in favor of reaching a conclusion for each of those issues. Regards Scott On 28/11/2009, at 10:42 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > --- On Fri, 11/27/09, Scott Gray <[hidden email]> wrote: >> In my original >> email I thought Adrian wanted to move the line where >> discussion ends and a formal vote begins and it was this >> concept that I was against (if that's even what he meant). > > I wasn't trying to move any lines. It just seemed to me that these > three subjects were being discussed, but no formal conclusion was > being reached. I was just trying to bring them to a clear conclusion. > > Yes, there were some +1s and -1s in some threads, but some of those > threads had subjects unrelated to what was being voted on, and my > concern was that others might be ignoring the thread due to its > subject line, yet the thing being voted on might be important to them. > > I wasn't trying to initiate a formal ASF voting procedure. I was > just trying to label things so it is clear to everyone what we are > voting on. > > I apologize for any confusion that caused. > > -Adrian > > > > |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |