You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> on 2009/10/23 15:59:54 UTC
Ruppert and Hans conflict solved.
We both regret what has happened which was caused by a number of
irritations in the last 2 years. We discussed this history with each
other to have a better understanding where we were coming from.
Ruppert wanted to apologize for letting emotions get the better of him
in responding to Hans's email about people Ruppert is working with not
finishing something they started. Further Ruppert promised that he and
his people will present the recommendations on best practice in a less
frustrated way - and will also lead by example and fix some of the
smaller ones instead of email about it.
Hans wanted to apologize for the initial email "plans are nice, but
what then?" insinuating that Ruppert his people people are good in
plans but not in implementing everything they think about. This
should have been rephrased into "Time to get SFA going again!" in
order getting the SFA application further developed.
We agreed the following:
------------------------
1. Reviews of Commits
a. We agree to follow the contributors guidelines and best practices.
b. Variable naming can be fixed/committed without big emails to the
original creator.
c. Historically HTML was not the strongest point in OFBiz and HotWax
has cleaned this up greatly.
d. Styles in HTML code will now not be allowed anymore.
e. Assistance to other contibutors will be provided to keep it clean.
2. Form Widget vs FTLs
a. Baggage around this debate is long and distinguished.
b. The form widget used to be MUCH more difficult to use, so many
things went the way of FTLs.
c. Now that the form widgets are much more powerful and flexible, they
have become the mostly defacto standard for backend apps
d. New ftl's in the backend should be really an exception now.
3. The SFA application.
a. The SFA application was built on FTLs originally, but needs to find
it's way into the form widget (like the Project Management app did).
b. This will allow it to continue to grow in functionality and get
this neglected piece of the system completed.
So, the lessons learned? Focus on collaboration and discussion - there
is no code ownership - and some people are better at building business
functionality than others. Continue reviews - with quick commits
sometimes being the review instead of emails. No more company based
suggestions / attacks / etc - we all work for different companies, no
need to bring people together in these groups - especially when
they're not involved. A new SFA application based upon the Form
Widget is coming - business application maintainability is about cost/
benefit, so it should be cost effective to maintain.
Cheers,
Ruppert and Hans
Re: Ruppert and Hans conflict solved.
Posted by ma...@librenberry.net.
Hi Hans, Hi Ruppert, It's good new for all contributor :) we can move
serenely on the right way.
Thks a lot for your work !
Nicolas
> We both regret what has happened which was caused by a number of
> irritations in the last 2 years. We discussed this history with each
> other to have a better understanding where we were coming from.
>
> Ruppert wanted to apologize for letting emotions get the better of him
> in responding to Hans's email about people Ruppert is working with not
> finishing something they started. Further Ruppert promised that he and
> his people will present the recommendations on best practice in a less
> frustrated way - and will also lead by example and fix some of the
> smaller ones instead of email about it.
>
> Hans wanted to apologize for the initial email "plans are nice, but
> what then?" insinuating that Ruppert his people people are good in
> plans but not in implementing everything they think about. This
> should have been rephrased into "Time to get SFA going again!" in
> order getting the SFA application further developed.
>
> We agreed the following:
> ------------------------
> 1. Reviews of Commits
> a. We agree to follow the contributors guidelines and best practices.
> b. Variable naming can be fixed/committed without big emails to the
> original creator.
> c. Historically HTML was not the strongest point in OFBiz and HotWax
> has cleaned this up greatly.
> d. Styles in HTML code will now not be allowed anymore.
> e. Assistance to other contibutors will be provided to keep it clean.
>
> 2. Form Widget vs FTLs
> a. Baggage around this debate is long and distinguished.
> b. The form widget used to be MUCH more difficult to use, so many
> things went the way of FTLs.
> c. Now that the form widgets are much more powerful and flexible, they
> have become the mostly defacto standard for backend apps
> d. New ftl's in the backend should be really an exception now.
>
> 3. The SFA application.
> a. The SFA application was built on FTLs originally, but needs to find
> it's way into the form widget (like the Project Management app did).
> b. This will allow it to continue to grow in functionality and get
> this neglected piece of the system completed.
>
> So, the lessons learned? Focus on collaboration and discussion - there
> is no code ownership - and some people are better at building business
> functionality than others. Continue reviews - with quick commits
> sometimes being the review instead of emails. No more company based
> suggestions / attacks / etc - we all work for different companies, no
> need to bring people together in these groups - especially when
> they're not involved. A new SFA application based upon the Form
> Widget is coming - business application maintainability is about cost/
> benefit, so it should be cost effective to maintain.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert and Hans
>
>
Re: Ruppert and Hans conflict solved.
Posted by Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Thanks for going thru this together Hans - looking forward to our
continued collaboration and pushing OFBiz to the next level!
Cheers,
Ruppert
On Oct 23, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> We both regret what has happened which was caused by a number of
> irritations in the last 2 years. We discussed this history with each
> other to have a better understanding where we were coming from.
>
> Ruppert wanted to apologize for letting emotions get the better of him
> in responding to Hans's email about people Ruppert is working with not
> finishing something they started. Further Ruppert promised that he and
> his people will present the recommendations on best practice in a less
> frustrated way - and will also lead by example and fix some of the
> smaller ones instead of email about it.
>
> Hans wanted to apologize for the initial email "plans are nice, but
> what then?" insinuating that Ruppert his people people are good in
> plans but not in implementing everything they think about. This
> should have been rephrased into "Time to get SFA going again!" in
> order getting the SFA application further developed.
>
> We agreed the following:
> ------------------------
> 1. Reviews of Commits
> a. We agree to follow the contributors guidelines and best practices.
> b. Variable naming can be fixed/committed without big emails to the
> original creator.
> c. Historically HTML was not the strongest point in OFBiz and HotWax
> has cleaned this up greatly.
> d. Styles in HTML code will now not be allowed anymore.
> e. Assistance to other contibutors will be provided to keep it clean.
>
> 2. Form Widget vs FTLs
> a. Baggage around this debate is long and distinguished.
> b. The form widget used to be MUCH more difficult to use, so many
> things went the way of FTLs.
> c. Now that the form widgets are much more powerful and flexible, they
> have become the mostly defacto standard for backend apps
> d. New ftl's in the backend should be really an exception now.
>
> 3. The SFA application.
> a. The SFA application was built on FTLs originally, but needs to find
> it's way into the form widget (like the Project Management app did).
> b. This will allow it to continue to grow in functionality and get
> this neglected piece of the system completed.
>
> So, the lessons learned? Focus on collaboration and discussion - there
> is no code ownership - and some people are better at building business
> functionality than others. Continue reviews - with quick commits
> sometimes being the review instead of emails. No more company based
> suggestions / attacks / etc - we all work for different companies, no
> need to bring people together in these groups - especially when
> they're not involved. A new SFA application based upon the Form
> Widget is coming - business application maintainability is about cost/
> benefit, so it should be cost effective to maintain.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert and Hans
>
Re: Ruppert and Hans conflict solved.
Posted by Mike Bates <mi...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Thanks for the reconciliation guys.
Way to put the "comm" in community ;) and congrats on working it out
amicably.
Mike
--
Mike Bates
HotWax Media
CEO
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
main: 888.405.2667
ApacheCon US 2009 Gold Sponsor
http://us.apachecon.com/c/acus2009/sponsors/sponsors
On Oct 23, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> We both regret what has happened which was caused by a number of
> irritations in the last 2 years. We discussed this history with each
> other to have a better understanding where we were coming from.
>
> Ruppert wanted to apologize for letting emotions get the better of him
> in responding to Hans's email about people Ruppert is working with not
> finishing something they started. Further Ruppert promised that he and
> his people will present the recommendations on best practice in a less
> frustrated way - and will also lead by example and fix some of the
> smaller ones instead of email about it.
>
> Hans wanted to apologize for the initial email "plans are nice, but
> what then?" insinuating that Ruppert his people people are good in
> plans but not in implementing everything they think about. This
> should have been rephrased into "Time to get SFA going again!" in
> order getting the SFA application further developed.
>
> We agreed the following:
> ------------------------
> 1. Reviews of Commits
> a. We agree to follow the contributors guidelines and best practices.
> b. Variable naming can be fixed/committed without big emails to the
> original creator.
> c. Historically HTML was not the strongest point in OFBiz and HotWax
> has cleaned this up greatly.
> d. Styles in HTML code will now not be allowed anymore.
> e. Assistance to other contibutors will be provided to keep it clean.
>
> 2. Form Widget vs FTLs
> a. Baggage around this debate is long and distinguished.
> b. The form widget used to be MUCH more difficult to use, so many
> things went the way of FTLs.
> c. Now that the form widgets are much more powerful and flexible, they
> have become the mostly defacto standard for backend apps
> d. New ftl's in the backend should be really an exception now.
>
> 3. The SFA application.
> a. The SFA application was built on FTLs originally, but needs to find
> it's way into the form widget (like the Project Management app did).
> b. This will allow it to continue to grow in functionality and get
> this neglected piece of the system completed.
>
> So, the lessons learned? Focus on collaboration and discussion - there
> is no code ownership - and some people are better at building business
> functionality than others. Continue reviews - with quick commits
> sometimes being the review instead of emails. No more company based
> suggestions / attacks / etc - we all work for different companies, no
> need to bring people together in these groups - especially when
> they're not involved. A new SFA application based upon the Form
> Widget is coming - business application maintainability is about cost/
> benefit, so it should be cost effective to maintain.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert and Hans
>
Re: Ruppert and Hans conflict solved.
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Great,
Thanks to both!
Jacques
From: "Hans Bakker" <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> We both regret what has happened which was caused by a number of
> irritations in the last 2 years. We discussed this history with each
> other to have a better understanding where we were coming from.
>
> Ruppert wanted to apologize for letting emotions get the better of him
> in responding to Hans's email about people Ruppert is working with not
> finishing something they started. Further Ruppert promised that he and
> his people will present the recommendations on best practice in a less
> frustrated way - and will also lead by example and fix some of the
> smaller ones instead of email about it.
>
> Hans wanted to apologize for the initial email "plans are nice, but
> what then?" insinuating that Ruppert his people people are good in
> plans but not in implementing everything they think about. This
> should have been rephrased into "Time to get SFA going again!" in
> order getting the SFA application further developed.
>
> We agreed the following:
> ------------------------
> 1. Reviews of Commits
> a. We agree to follow the contributors guidelines and best practices.
> b. Variable naming can be fixed/committed without big emails to the
> original creator.
> c. Historically HTML was not the strongest point in OFBiz and HotWax
> has cleaned this up greatly.
> d. Styles in HTML code will now not be allowed anymore.
> e. Assistance to other contibutors will be provided to keep it clean.
>
> 2. Form Widget vs FTLs
> a. Baggage around this debate is long and distinguished.
> b. The form widget used to be MUCH more difficult to use, so many
> things went the way of FTLs.
> c. Now that the form widgets are much more powerful and flexible, they
> have become the mostly defacto standard for backend apps
> d. New ftl's in the backend should be really an exception now.
>
> 3. The SFA application.
> a. The SFA application was built on FTLs originally, but needs to find
> it's way into the form widget (like the Project Management app did).
> b. This will allow it to continue to grow in functionality and get
> this neglected piece of the system completed.
>
> So, the lessons learned? Focus on collaboration and discussion - there
> is no code ownership - and some people are better at building business
> functionality than others. Continue reviews - with quick commits
> sometimes being the review instead of emails. No more company based
> suggestions / attacks / etc - we all work for different companies, no
> need to bring people together in these groups - especially when
> they're not involved. A new SFA application based upon the Form
> Widget is coming - business application maintainability is about cost/
> benefit, so it should be cost effective to maintain.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert and Hans
>
Re: Ruppert and Hans conflict solved.
Posted by Al Byers <by...@automationgroups.com>.
Group hug! Group hug!
Re: Ruppert and Hans conflict solved.
Posted by Ean Schuessler <ea...@brainfood.com>.
Well played again.
Hans Bakker wrote:
> We both regret what has happened which was caused by a number of
> irritations in the last 2 years. We discussed this history with each
> other to have a better understanding where we were coming from.
>
> Ruppert wanted to apologize for letting emotions get the better of him
> in responding to Hans's email about people Ruppert is working with not
> finishing something they started. Further Ruppert promised that he and
> his people will present the recommendations on best practice in a less
> frustrated way - and will also lead by example and fix some of the
> smaller ones instead of email about it.
>
> Hans wanted to apologize for the initial email "plans are nice, but
> what then?" insinuating that Ruppert his people people are good in
> plans but not in implementing everything they think about. This
> should have been rephrased into "Time to get SFA going again!" in
> order getting the SFA application further developed.
>
> We agreed the following:
> ------------------------
> 1. Reviews of Commits
> a. We agree to follow the contributors guidelines and best practices.
> b. Variable naming can be fixed/committed without big emails to the
> original creator.
> c. Historically HTML was not the strongest point in OFBiz and HotWax
> has cleaned this up greatly.
> d. Styles in HTML code will now not be allowed anymore.
> e. Assistance to other contibutors will be provided to keep it clean.
>
> 2. Form Widget vs FTLs
> a. Baggage around this debate is long and distinguished.
> b. The form widget used to be MUCH more difficult to use, so many
> things went the way of FTLs.
> c. Now that the form widgets are much more powerful and flexible, they
> have become the mostly defacto standard for backend apps
> d. New ftl's in the backend should be really an exception now.
>
> 3. The SFA application.
> a. The SFA application was built on FTLs originally, but needs to find
> it's way into the form widget (like the Project Management app did).
> b. This will allow it to continue to grow in functionality and get
> this neglected piece of the system completed.
>
> So, the lessons learned? Focus on collaboration and discussion - there
> is no code ownership - and some people are better at building business
> functionality than others. Continue reviews - with quick commits
> sometimes being the review instead of emails. No more company based
> suggestions / attacks / etc - we all work for different companies, no
> need to bring people together in these groups - especially when
> they're not involved. A new SFA application based upon the Form
> Widget is coming - business application maintainability is about cost/
> benefit, so it should be cost effective to maintain.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert and Hans
>
--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
ean@brainfood.com
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com