You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@ofbiz.apache.org by ha...@apache.org on 2010/02/03 04:58:14 UTC
svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml
ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Author: hansbak
Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
New Revision: 905878
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev
Log:
fix build error reported by buildbot
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml
ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Modified: ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml?rev=905878&r1=905877&r2=905878&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml (original)
+++ ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
@@ -29,7 +29,6 @@
<property name="name" value="ofbiz-ebay"/>
<path id="local.class.path">
- <fileset dir="${lib.dir}" includes="*.jar"/>
<fileset dir="../../framework/base/lib" includes="*.jar"/>
<fileset dir="../../framework/base/lib/commons" includes="*.jar"/>
<fileset dir="../../framework/base/lib/j2eespecs" includes="*.jar"/>
Modified: ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml?rev=905878&r1=905877&r2=905878&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml (original)
+++ ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
@@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/ofbiz-component.xsd">
<resource-loader name="main" type="component"/>
<classpath type="dir" location="config"/>
- <classpath type="jar" location="lib/*"/>
<classpath type="jar" location="build/lib/*"/>
<entity-resource type="model" reader-name="main" loader="main" location="entitydef/entitymodel.xml"/>
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@free.fr>.
Adam,
It's also a matter of time.
Jacques
From: "Adam Heath" <do...@brainfood.com>
> David E Jones wrote:
>> In spite of what you wrote here I will resist the urge to reply in any detail.
>>
>> I hope others will recognize how shallow and sanctimonious these remarks are, and that at least some will understand and make an
>> effort not to treat others this way. Empathy and compassion most certainly have a place in community interaction, and IMO are one
>> of the more important parts of the "community over code" concept.
>
> Additionally, I have noticed over the years(not just in ofbiz), that
> people don't want to *give* critiscm *at all*, because they are not
> prepared to deal with the backlash from those who receive the
> critiscm. When said people try to give such constructive critiscm,
> and then get chewn out over doing so, they take it personal. Even
> when the critiscm is completely justified.
>
> I understand that.
>
> I, however, am not concerned with such matters. When I give critiscm,
> and others can't take it, it does *not* phase me. It's only when
> others then respond, saying that I shouldn't have commented at all in
> the first place, that I get upset.
>
> I am also the same way when people find issues with what I have done.
> I am overjoyed to have feedback, 'cuz that means people are actually
> reading my code. If no one responds at all, it can me 1 of 2 things:
> one, there were no problems, or 2: no one read it, and there might be
> problems. I tend to ere on the side of caution in these cases, and
> keep assuming that no response means there are undiscovered bugs, and
> this makes me uneasy.
>
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose:
ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
David E Jones wrote:
> In spite of what you wrote here I will resist the urge to reply in any detail.
>
> I hope others will recognize how shallow and sanctimonious these remarks are, and that at least some will understand and make an effort not to treat others this way. Empathy and compassion most certainly have a place in community interaction, and IMO are one of the more important parts of the "community over code" concept.
Additionally, I have noticed over the years(not just in ofbiz), that
people don't want to *give* critiscm *at all*, because they are not
prepared to deal with the backlash from those who receive the
critiscm. When said people try to give such constructive critiscm,
and then get chewn out over doing so, they take it personal. Even
when the critiscm is completely justified.
I understand that.
I, however, am not concerned with such matters. When I give critiscm,
and others can't take it, it does *not* phase me. It's only when
others then respond, saying that I shouldn't have commented at all in
the first place, that I get upset.
I am also the same way when people find issues with what I have done.
I am overjoyed to have feedback, 'cuz that means people are actually
reading my code. If no one responds at all, it can me 1 of 2 things:
one, there were no problems, or 2: no one read it, and there might be
problems. I tend to ere on the side of caution in these cases, and
keep assuming that no response means there are undiscovered bugs, and
this makes me uneasy.
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in
/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> David E Jones wrote:
>> In spite of what you wrote here I will resist the urge to reply in any detail.
>>
>> I hope others will recognize how shallow and sanctimonious these remarks are, and that at least some will understand and make an effort not to treat others this way. Empathy and compassion most certainly have a place in community interaction, and IMO are one of the more important parts of the "community over code" concept.
>
> They need to be, because your original reason for starting this(before
> this 'Community Interactions' thread) was flawed. You can't ignore
> that. You don't seem to be reading my responses at all, or are not
> capable of understanding what I am saying.
>
> This whole discussion is *not* the beginning; it is the end of a long
> line of discussions that lead up to this. I am getting tired of
> repeating that.
>
> Doesn't anyone else on this list see what I am trying to say? Have I
> not been consistent? Please, speak up.
Don't worry, you've been abundantly consistent and should pride yourself on that.
-David
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose:
ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
David E Jones wrote:
> In spite of what you wrote here I will resist the urge to reply in any detail.
>
> I hope others will recognize how shallow and sanctimonious these remarks are, and that at least some will understand and make an effort not to treat others this way. Empathy and compassion most certainly have a place in community interaction, and IMO are one of the more important parts of the "community over code" concept.
They need to be, because your original reason for starting this(before
this 'Community Interactions' thread) was flawed. You can't ignore
that. You don't seem to be reading my responses at all, or are not
capable of understanding what I am saying.
This whole discussion is *not* the beginning; it is the end of a long
line of discussions that lead up to this. I am getting tired of
repeating that.
Doesn't anyone else on this list see what I am trying to say? Have I
not been consistent? Please, speak up.
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in
/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
In spite of what you wrote here I will resist the urge to reply in any detail.
I hope others will recognize how shallow and sanctimonious these remarks are, and that at least some will understand and make an effort not to treat others this way. Empathy and compassion most certainly have a place in community interaction, and IMO are one of the more important parts of the "community over code" concept.
-David
On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:38 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> David E Jones wrote:
>> Go on all you like. The simple point is that you need to tone it
>> down if you want others to be willing to contribute. This is a
>> community-driven project, and you are not the boss. If you want
>> code to be a certain way, then by all means step up and make it
>> that way. Why do you expect others to do thing the way you think
>> they should be done?
>
> Bother. So, when someone repeatedly makes the same mistakes, even
> after being told multiple times over and over to be better, even after
> trying to be polite over and over and over again, we must still be
> soft in our language?
>
> At some point, a tree just becomes a tree, and calling it a branch is
> no longer the way to go.
>
> I *have* shown how it is possible to do what I have been talking
> about. Countless times. There are tools to help us; several
> different kinds. But people don't seem to use them. Then, people get
> defensive when I comment on the issues that they cause for others.
>
> A community project this is; that means that those participating
> should be aware of the what others are doing, and be courteous of not
> breaking what others might be working on. It's not just about being
> soft spoken, it's about the code first and foremost.
>
> Repeatedly, I have commented on things, given examples of what to do.
> Others on this list have agreed with me, while others have taken what
> I have said and pasted it into various developer docs. This
> particular incident was me repeating what I have already said in the
> past, and what others have agreed with me on. Are you saying we are
> all wrong, and that you are right?
>
>> Heck, I'm even gun-shy these days and I'm really not interested in
>> developing and contributing much because of the total lack of
>> constructive review and feedback, with this sort of vitriol and
>> nonsense in its place. I even have a couple of offers to do things
>> in the framework, but I've recommended to the client that they take
>> a different course because "doing it right" would involve way too
>> much community push back, and I'm just not that into it. I really
>> don't want to write code according to the rules of Adam Heath or
>> anyone else, especially since there is so much poorly designed and
>> organized stuff constantly going into OFBiz that these "rules" seem
>> to universally miss the point and just throw effort where it won't
>> do ANY good. But don't worry Adam, you're far from the only one and
>> I don't want to miscommunicate here and state or imply that it is
>> you fault, it is most certainly not.
>
> To be fair, it only got so heated after you spoke up. Do not place
> the blame solely on me.
>
> I've seen the case countless times over the years, in tons of
> different projects, to only comment on the end of a situation. But
> that is useless. You must deal with the root of the problem.
>
> You don't want to write code to my standards, or someone else's
> standards? That means you want to write them to your own standards.
> I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Your standards are not what ofbiz
> is(I'm sorry, it may have been that way in the past, but not anymore).
> The standards for ofbiz are what we *all* agree to(what that actually
> *is* varies over time of course). To say you won't follow what anyone
> else says, and will do things your own way, is the absolute worse
> thing to do.
>
> If the community pushes back on something, maybe it's for a reason.
> Just because some individual things they are doing things correct, if
> the rest of us disagree, that doesn't mean that the rest of us are
> wrong, and you are correct. This project is no longer solely yours.
>
> If you see things being done that you don't agree with, that's cool.
> Say so, at the time. Keeping silent on them will *not* get them
> fixed. If there is an issue, speak up! If you mention an issue, and
> others here agree, then a consensus can be reached. But just giving
> up will *not* produce better work. People who give up are lazy, imho.
> This is why I very seldom give up. Even when I say I am going to
> ignore someone, and either say I will block the email, block the IM,
> block the irc, I really don't; I just use that as a wake-up call to
> whoever I am interacting with.
>
>> A few days ago I let the PMC know that I'm stepping down as the
>> chair and intend to no longer be as active in the project. There are
>> many reasons for that, but I won't say that this sort of stuff isn't
>> one of them. This kind of stuff just isn't worth it to me personally.
>
> That's said that you are stepping down. But this still seems to me
> that you are pouting, and taking your ball home.
>
> A leader has to take the good with the bad. If this really is 'the
> bad', and others could tell me if it is(I already know how you feel
> about this), then fine. But, I'm thinking that this won't be the
> case. If this turns out not to be 'the bad', then you are just making
> a mountain out of a molehill, and you've lost touch with everyone else.
>
>> I don't know how to solve these problems with community interactions,
>> or by another way of looking at it I don't know what we can do to
>> work together better. I've tried a few times to defend people being
>> attacked, or try to point out hopefully more effective ways of doing
>> things. Every time I just get personally attacked in response. I
>> know that doing this is not the role of the PMC Chair, but I've been
>> trying anyway and obviously completely failing and my efforts seem
>> to be doing more harm than good, or that is the feedback I've been
>> seeing. It's great that OFBiz has become what it has in spite of my
>> inability to foster growth and collaboration in the community, and I
>> hope that it will continue to grow and do so because of the nature
>> of the project and community. I really have hope that it will, in
>> spite of what I'm about to write...
>
> I'll say it again, as I've said previously in this email, and others.
> I've been working with everyone here for quite a while, and others
> here agree with me. Others here may not have enough experience
> dealing with community projects, so may not be able to express
> themselves in ways others can understand. My extensive experience has
> allowed me to hone this skill, so I say what is on my mind. Others
> can then read it easily, and most often actually agree with what I say.
>
> Then, with such agreement, I tend to continue on the same set of
> issues that have been confirmed. Suddenly, out of the blue, people
> start saying I shouldn't be doing such commentary. Hogwash. We've
> agreed, and I'm good at discovering these issues, and communicating
> the problem(s) to each person in general, without hardly ever coming
> off as an attack. It's only the repeat offenders that I am more
> forceful with.
>
> The reason Hans does get more eyes looking at his work, is the *fact*
> that he does so much of it.
>
>> For years I've been talking up this approach of doing things in a
>> community-driven way and the great things that can happen, and have
>> happened with OFBiz, because of the approach. Over the last few
>> months I guess I've lost my faith in it. It's interesting that OFBiz
>> was born in one recession, but the project doesn't seem to be
>> weathering this one very well. I hope things improve and that the
>> community will strengthen again, because it's the ONLY that the
>> project will progress in any good way. I imagine most of us are
>> under considerably more stress than has been the case in recent
>> years, and it's a shame to see things going this way. Still, my
>> income is almost entirely based on OFBiz and I'm glad of that... it's
>> still a better place to be and better software to be working with
>> than anything else I'm aware of.
>
> Huh? You think it isn't weathering this one well? What are you
> smoking? Ofbiz has gotten *bigger* in the last 1.5 years; more work
> is going into it.
>
> I see this community as perfectly strong.
>
> This particular thread/incident is nothing, in the grand scheme of
> flamewars that I have been involved with. This issue is kindergarten
> in severity. It's just some others seem to have quite thin skin.
>
>
>>
>> -David
>>
>> P.S. I apologize for my tone in my previous response, I should not
>> have sunk so low. I won't do so in the future.
>
> Yet after you did so, and I responded in kind, you then come after me
> as the one who started it. Wonderful.
>
> ps: I'm sorry if this email seems a little personal. There were so
> many inconsistent view points, that I couldn't let the email go
> without a response.
>
> pps: There are several parts to this email that are not directed at
> all to any one particular person. They can be applied to anyone, if
> you step back a bit and look at the big picture.
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Sorry - writing on mobile devices while traveling is never a good idea - guess I need one of those messages that tries to apologies for having fingers bigger than a mobile keyboard :) - here's what I was saying without all of the duh built in:
>> My fellow committer (this time you are that fellow committer Adam) has his terseness in response - but I have to admit that I'd rather have him consistently call that spade a spade than to give up on improving the quality of our shared project just because he's too busy to help to do it right ... Building a completely new implementations or feature is one thing, but when you're enhancing functionality that already exists in the system (eg like struggling to name the new component because it's a copy of an existing component) we've got to have more dedication to earlier collaboration.
Just trying not to get personal again - this isn't about the person, but the lack of comm and the confusing nature of what we ended up with as a community.
Cheers,
Ruppert
On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> My fellow committer has his terseness in response - but I have to admit that I'd rather have him consistently call that spade a spade not too because he's just too busy to help to do it right ... Completely new implementations are one thing, but when you're replacing existing functionality we've got to have more dedication to earlier collaboration IMO.
>
> Huh? You're english leaves much to be desired. Could you rewrite
> that in a more intelligible way? I couldn't quite parse it.
>
> (I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but there are ways it
> could be misunderstood, and it would be nice to have those cleared up)
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose:
ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Tim Ruppert wrote:
> My fellow committer has his terseness in response - but I have to admit that I'd rather have him consistently call that spade a spade not too because he's just too busy to help to do it right ... Completely new implementations are one thing, but when you're replacing existing functionality we've got to have more dedication to earlier collaboration IMO.
Huh? You're english leaves much to be desired. Could you rewrite
that in a more intelligible way? I couldn't quite parse it.
(I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but there are ways it
could be misunderstood, and it would be nice to have those cleared up)
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
My fellow committer has his terseness in response - but I have to admit that I'd rather have him consistently call that spade a spade not too because he's just too busy to help to do it right ... Completely new implementations are one thing, but when you're replacing existing functionality we've got to have more dedication to earlier collaboration IMO.
Cheers,
Ruppert
On Feb 4, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 19:04 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
>> Hans Bakker wrote:
>>> Adam,
>>>
>>> please do not introduce the Debian fights where you seem to be so proud
>>> of, in this mailing list.
>>
>> I never said that. I said my experience with Debian in the past has
>> made me able to work better in community projects. And that if people
>> think this is a flamewar, it isn't, I've experienced way worse.
>>
>
> You as a long time contributor should realize the intentions of David
> and not react this way. There is also something called respect. Without
> David you would not be programming in OFBiz. If you feel attacked try to
> get tension down and not increase it even more. David in general did an
> excellent job a that.
>
>>> I appreciate your technical involvement but your mailinglist behavior is
>>> not acceptable. You are scaring away any new contributions from new
>>> people.
>>
>> My behaviour? Really? What about David's? Just because David
>> started the project, does not mean that he is right by fiat. Everyone
>> can be wrong at times.
>
> No sorry Adam, you are reacting with far too much aggression. If you
> think you are right and even if you are, you are hurting people too much
> in the process. You will get that back in the future some day.
>
>>
>> I have been extremely nice, and not singling out anyone, until now.
>> Repeat offenders will always get more stern responses. I am only
>> saying what we as a group have agreed with. It's just that people who
>> have been involved with the project for an extended period that can't
>> follow the guidelines that have been discussed and agreed upon that I
>> take exception with.
>>
>> New people by their nature don't know, so we have to be more polite with.
>>
>> Listen, everyone. Very closely. It's not hard to comprehend. I like
>> things consistent. I then mention the reasons why I like things
>> consistent. Others on this list have agreed. And, it just makes
>> sense. Consistent includes all formatting, and it includes not
>> breaking functionality or builds. So, I then go and point out issues
>> with consistency when they occur. Others don't point theses issues
>> out, but that doesn't make them any less valid.
>>
>> For repeat offenders, I will always get more forceful. It doesn't
>> matter who you are, or how much you have done. This is part of my
>> blindness thing; Leaders of the project or various lueitenants
>>
>> Then, for some reason, random other people who are not involved
>> suddenly think I am saying something out of the clear blue; they don't
>> realize that this is a long term sort of issue, that has been
>> discussed with others, and said others have agreed. That I will not
>> accept.
>>
>> If you are a police officer, and you get called to an accident, where
>> a car has run into a wall, killing a woman who was with an unborn
>> child that was riding in the passenger seat, are you going to blame
>> the driver of the vehicle who survied without a scratch? Or, are you
>> going to investigate, and discover that another driver who has left
>> the scene side-swiped the car?
>>
>> Another way to look at this, is that people are only responding to the
>> end result, without knowing(or care to investigate) the root cause.
>> This again, is wrong, period. And yet *I* get blamed for calling
>> someone else out, when the cause is perfectly valid.
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in
/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 19:04 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Hans Bakker wrote:
> > Adam,
> >
> > please do not introduce the Debian fights where you seem to be so proud
> > of, in this mailing list.
>
> I never said that. I said my experience with Debian in the past has
> made me able to work better in community projects. And that if people
> think this is a flamewar, it isn't, I've experienced way worse.
>
You as a long time contributor should realize the intentions of David
and not react this way. There is also something called respect. Without
David you would not be programming in OFBiz. If you feel attacked try to
get tension down and not increase it even more. David in general did an
excellent job a that.
> > I appreciate your technical involvement but your mailinglist behavior is
> > not acceptable. You are scaring away any new contributions from new
> > people.
>
> My behaviour? Really? What about David's? Just because David
> started the project, does not mean that he is right by fiat. Everyone
> can be wrong at times.
No sorry Adam, you are reacting with far too much aggression. If you
think you are right and even if you are, you are hurting people too much
in the process. You will get that back in the future some day.
>
> I have been extremely nice, and not singling out anyone, until now.
> Repeat offenders will always get more stern responses. I am only
> saying what we as a group have agreed with. It's just that people who
> have been involved with the project for an extended period that can't
> follow the guidelines that have been discussed and agreed upon that I
> take exception with.
>
> New people by their nature don't know, so we have to be more polite with.
>
> Listen, everyone. Very closely. It's not hard to comprehend. I like
> things consistent. I then mention the reasons why I like things
> consistent. Others on this list have agreed. And, it just makes
> sense. Consistent includes all formatting, and it includes not
> breaking functionality or builds. So, I then go and point out issues
> with consistency when they occur. Others don't point theses issues
> out, but that doesn't make them any less valid.
>
> For repeat offenders, I will always get more forceful. It doesn't
> matter who you are, or how much you have done. This is part of my
> blindness thing; Leaders of the project or various lueitenants
>
> Then, for some reason, random other people who are not involved
> suddenly think I am saying something out of the clear blue; they don't
> realize that this is a long term sort of issue, that has been
> discussed with others, and said others have agreed. That I will not
> accept.
>
> If you are a police officer, and you get called to an accident, where
> a car has run into a wall, killing a woman who was with an unborn
> child that was riding in the passenger seat, are you going to blame
> the driver of the vehicle who survied without a scratch? Or, are you
> going to investigate, and discover that another driver who has left
> the scene side-swiped the car?
>
> Another way to look at this, is that people are only responding to the
> end result, without knowing(or care to investigate) the root cause.
> This again, is wrong, period. And yet *I* get blamed for calling
> someone else out, when the cause is perfectly valid.
--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose:
ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Hans Bakker wrote:
> Adam,
>
> please do not introduce the Debian fights where you seem to be so proud
> of, in this mailing list.
I never said that. I said my experience with Debian in the past has
made me able to work better in community projects. And that if people
think this is a flamewar, it isn't, I've experienced way worse.
> I appreciate your technical involvement but your mailinglist behavior is
> not acceptable. You are scaring away any new contributions from new
> people.
My behaviour? Really? What about David's? Just because David
started the project, does not mean that he is right by fiat. Everyone
can be wrong at times.
I have been extremely nice, and not singling out anyone, until now.
Repeat offenders will always get more stern responses. I am only
saying what we as a group have agreed with. It's just that people who
have been involved with the project for an extended period that can't
follow the guidelines that have been discussed and agreed upon that I
take exception with.
New people by their nature don't know, so we have to be more polite with.
Listen, everyone. Very closely. It's not hard to comprehend. I like
things consistent. I then mention the reasons why I like things
consistent. Others on this list have agreed. And, it just makes
sense. Consistent includes all formatting, and it includes not
breaking functionality or builds. So, I then go and point out issues
with consistency when they occur. Others don't point theses issues
out, but that doesn't make them any less valid.
For repeat offenders, I will always get more forceful. It doesn't
matter who you are, or how much you have done. This is part of my
blindness thing; Leaders of the project or various lueitenants
Then, for some reason, random other people who are not involved
suddenly think I am saying something out of the clear blue; they don't
realize that this is a long term sort of issue, that has been
discussed with others, and said others have agreed. That I will not
accept.
If you are a police officer, and you get called to an accident, where
a car has run into a wall, killing a woman who was with an unborn
child that was riding in the passenger seat, are you going to blame
the driver of the vehicle who survied without a scratch? Or, are you
going to investigate, and discover that another driver who has left
the scene side-swiped the car?
Another way to look at this, is that people are only responding to the
end result, without knowing(or care to investigate) the root cause.
This again, is wrong, period. And yet *I* get blamed for calling
someone else out, when the cause is perfectly valid.
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in
/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Adam,
please do not introduce the Debian fights where you seem to be so proud
of, in this mailing list.
I appreciate your technical involvement but your mailinglist behavior is
not acceptable. You are scaring away any new contributions from new
people.
Regards,
Hans
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:38 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> David E Jones wrote:
> > Go on all you like. The simple point is that you need to tone it
> > down if you want others to be willing to contribute. This is a
> > community-driven project, and you are not the boss. If you want
> > code to be a certain way, then by all means step up and make it
> > that way. Why do you expect others to do thing the way you think
> > they should be done?
>
> Bother. So, when someone repeatedly makes the same mistakes, even
> after being told multiple times over and over to be better, even after
> trying to be polite over and over and over again, we must still be
> soft in our language?
>
> At some point, a tree just becomes a tree, and calling it a branch is
> no longer the way to go.
>
> I *have* shown how it is possible to do what I have been talking
> about. Countless times. There are tools to help us; several
> different kinds. But people don't seem to use them. Then, people get
> defensive when I comment on the issues that they cause for others.
>
> A community project this is; that means that those participating
> should be aware of the what others are doing, and be courteous of not
> breaking what others might be working on. It's not just about being
> soft spoken, it's about the code first and foremost.
>
> Repeatedly, I have commented on things, given examples of what to do.
> Others on this list have agreed with me, while others have taken what
> I have said and pasted it into various developer docs. This
> particular incident was me repeating what I have already said in the
> past, and what others have agreed with me on. Are you saying we are
> all wrong, and that you are right?
>
> > Heck, I'm even gun-shy these days and I'm really not interested in
> > developing and contributing much because of the total lack of
> > constructive review and feedback, with this sort of vitriol and
> > nonsense in its place. I even have a couple of offers to do things
> > in the framework, but I've recommended to the client that they take
> > a different course because "doing it right" would involve way too
> > much community push back, and I'm just not that into it. I really
> > don't want to write code according to the rules of Adam Heath or
> > anyone else, especially since there is so much poorly designed and
> > organized stuff constantly going into OFBiz that these "rules" seem
> > to universally miss the point and just throw effort where it won't
> > do ANY good. But don't worry Adam, you're far from the only one and
> > I don't want to miscommunicate here and state or imply that it is
> > you fault, it is most certainly not.
>
> To be fair, it only got so heated after you spoke up. Do not place
> the blame solely on me.
>
> I've seen the case countless times over the years, in tons of
> different projects, to only comment on the end of a situation. But
> that is useless. You must deal with the root of the problem.
>
> You don't want to write code to my standards, or someone else's
> standards? That means you want to write them to your own standards.
> I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Your standards are not what ofbiz
> is(I'm sorry, it may have been that way in the past, but not anymore).
> The standards for ofbiz are what we *all* agree to(what that actually
> *is* varies over time of course). To say you won't follow what anyone
> else says, and will do things your own way, is the absolute worse
> thing to do.
>
> If the community pushes back on something, maybe it's for a reason.
> Just because some individual things they are doing things correct, if
> the rest of us disagree, that doesn't mean that the rest of us are
> wrong, and you are correct. This project is no longer solely yours.
>
> If you see things being done that you don't agree with, that's cool.
> Say so, at the time. Keeping silent on them will *not* get them
> fixed. If there is an issue, speak up! If you mention an issue, and
> others here agree, then a consensus can be reached. But just giving
> up will *not* produce better work. People who give up are lazy, imho.
> This is why I very seldom give up. Even when I say I am going to
> ignore someone, and either say I will block the email, block the IM,
> block the irc, I really don't; I just use that as a wake-up call to
> whoever I am interacting with.
>
> > A few days ago I let the PMC know that I'm stepping down as the
> > chair and intend to no longer be as active in the project. There are
> > many reasons for that, but I won't say that this sort of stuff isn't
> > one of them. This kind of stuff just isn't worth it to me personally.
>
> That's said that you are stepping down. But this still seems to me
> that you are pouting, and taking your ball home.
>
> A leader has to take the good with the bad. If this really is 'the
> bad', and others could tell me if it is(I already know how you feel
> about this), then fine. But, I'm thinking that this won't be the
> case. If this turns out not to be 'the bad', then you are just making
> a mountain out of a molehill, and you've lost touch with everyone else.
>
> > I don't know how to solve these problems with community interactions,
> > or by another way of looking at it I don't know what we can do to
> > work together better. I've tried a few times to defend people being
> > attacked, or try to point out hopefully more effective ways of doing
> > things. Every time I just get personally attacked in response. I
> > know that doing this is not the role of the PMC Chair, but I've been
> > trying anyway and obviously completely failing and my efforts seem
> > to be doing more harm than good, or that is the feedback I've been
> > seeing. It's great that OFBiz has become what it has in spite of my
> > inability to foster growth and collaboration in the community, and I
> > hope that it will continue to grow and do so because of the nature
> > of the project and community. I really have hope that it will, in
> > spite of what I'm about to write...
>
> I'll say it again, as I've said previously in this email, and others.
> I've been working with everyone here for quite a while, and others
> here agree with me. Others here may not have enough experience
> dealing with community projects, so may not be able to express
> themselves in ways others can understand. My extensive experience has
> allowed me to hone this skill, so I say what is on my mind. Others
> can then read it easily, and most often actually agree with what I say.
>
> Then, with such agreement, I tend to continue on the same set of
> issues that have been confirmed. Suddenly, out of the blue, people
> start saying I shouldn't be doing such commentary. Hogwash. We've
> agreed, and I'm good at discovering these issues, and communicating
> the problem(s) to each person in general, without hardly ever coming
> off as an attack. It's only the repeat offenders that I am more
> forceful with.
>
> The reason Hans does get more eyes looking at his work, is the *fact*
> that he does so much of it.
>
> > For years I've been talking up this approach of doing things in a
> > community-driven way and the great things that can happen, and have
> > happened with OFBiz, because of the approach. Over the last few
> > months I guess I've lost my faith in it. It's interesting that OFBiz
> > was born in one recession, but the project doesn't seem to be
> > weathering this one very well. I hope things improve and that the
> > community will strengthen again, because it's the ONLY that the
> > project will progress in any good way. I imagine most of us are
> > under considerably more stress than has been the case in recent
> > years, and it's a shame to see things going this way. Still, my
> > income is almost entirely based on OFBiz and I'm glad of that... it's
> > still a better place to be and better software to be working with
> > than anything else I'm aware of.
>
> Huh? You think it isn't weathering this one well? What are you
> smoking? Ofbiz has gotten *bigger* in the last 1.5 years; more work
> is going into it.
>
> I see this community as perfectly strong.
>
> This particular thread/incident is nothing, in the grand scheme of
> flamewars that I have been involved with. This issue is kindergarten
> in severity. It's just some others seem to have quite thin skin.
>
>
> >
> > -David
> >
> > P.S. I apologize for my tone in my previous response, I should not
> > have sunk so low. I won't do so in the future.
>
> Yet after you did so, and I responded in kind, you then come after me
> as the one who started it. Wonderful.
>
> ps: I'm sorry if this email seems a little personal. There were so
> many inconsistent view points, that I couldn't let the email go
> without a response.
>
> pps: There are several parts to this email that are not directed at
> all to any one particular person. They can be applied to anyone, if
> you step back a bit and look at the big picture.
--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose:
ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
David E Jones wrote:
> Go on all you like. The simple point is that you need to tone it
> down if you want others to be willing to contribute. This is a
> community-driven project, and you are not the boss. If you want
> code to be a certain way, then by all means step up and make it
> that way. Why do you expect others to do thing the way you think
> they should be done?
Bother. So, when someone repeatedly makes the same mistakes, even
after being told multiple times over and over to be better, even after
trying to be polite over and over and over again, we must still be
soft in our language?
At some point, a tree just becomes a tree, and calling it a branch is
no longer the way to go.
I *have* shown how it is possible to do what I have been talking
about. Countless times. There are tools to help us; several
different kinds. But people don't seem to use them. Then, people get
defensive when I comment on the issues that they cause for others.
A community project this is; that means that those participating
should be aware of the what others are doing, and be courteous of not
breaking what others might be working on. It's not just about being
soft spoken, it's about the code first and foremost.
Repeatedly, I have commented on things, given examples of what to do.
Others on this list have agreed with me, while others have taken what
I have said and pasted it into various developer docs. This
particular incident was me repeating what I have already said in the
past, and what others have agreed with me on. Are you saying we are
all wrong, and that you are right?
> Heck, I'm even gun-shy these days and I'm really not interested in
> developing and contributing much because of the total lack of
> constructive review and feedback, with this sort of vitriol and
> nonsense in its place. I even have a couple of offers to do things
> in the framework, but I've recommended to the client that they take
> a different course because "doing it right" would involve way too
> much community push back, and I'm just not that into it. I really
> don't want to write code according to the rules of Adam Heath or
> anyone else, especially since there is so much poorly designed and
> organized stuff constantly going into OFBiz that these "rules" seem
> to universally miss the point and just throw effort where it won't
> do ANY good. But don't worry Adam, you're far from the only one and
> I don't want to miscommunicate here and state or imply that it is
> you fault, it is most certainly not.
To be fair, it only got so heated after you spoke up. Do not place
the blame solely on me.
I've seen the case countless times over the years, in tons of
different projects, to only comment on the end of a situation. But
that is useless. You must deal with the root of the problem.
You don't want to write code to my standards, or someone else's
standards? That means you want to write them to your own standards.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Your standards are not what ofbiz
is(I'm sorry, it may have been that way in the past, but not anymore).
The standards for ofbiz are what we *all* agree to(what that actually
*is* varies over time of course). To say you won't follow what anyone
else says, and will do things your own way, is the absolute worse
thing to do.
If the community pushes back on something, maybe it's for a reason.
Just because some individual things they are doing things correct, if
the rest of us disagree, that doesn't mean that the rest of us are
wrong, and you are correct. This project is no longer solely yours.
If you see things being done that you don't agree with, that's cool.
Say so, at the time. Keeping silent on them will *not* get them
fixed. If there is an issue, speak up! If you mention an issue, and
others here agree, then a consensus can be reached. But just giving
up will *not* produce better work. People who give up are lazy, imho.
This is why I very seldom give up. Even when I say I am going to
ignore someone, and either say I will block the email, block the IM,
block the irc, I really don't; I just use that as a wake-up call to
whoever I am interacting with.
> A few days ago I let the PMC know that I'm stepping down as the
> chair and intend to no longer be as active in the project. There are
> many reasons for that, but I won't say that this sort of stuff isn't
> one of them. This kind of stuff just isn't worth it to me personally.
That's said that you are stepping down. But this still seems to me
that you are pouting, and taking your ball home.
A leader has to take the good with the bad. If this really is 'the
bad', and others could tell me if it is(I already know how you feel
about this), then fine. But, I'm thinking that this won't be the
case. If this turns out not to be 'the bad', then you are just making
a mountain out of a molehill, and you've lost touch with everyone else.
> I don't know how to solve these problems with community interactions,
> or by another way of looking at it I don't know what we can do to
> work together better. I've tried a few times to defend people being
> attacked, or try to point out hopefully more effective ways of doing
> things. Every time I just get personally attacked in response. I
> know that doing this is not the role of the PMC Chair, but I've been
> trying anyway and obviously completely failing and my efforts seem
> to be doing more harm than good, or that is the feedback I've been
> seeing. It's great that OFBiz has become what it has in spite of my
> inability to foster growth and collaboration in the community, and I
> hope that it will continue to grow and do so because of the nature
> of the project and community. I really have hope that it will, in
> spite of what I'm about to write...
I'll say it again, as I've said previously in this email, and others.
I've been working with everyone here for quite a while, and others
here agree with me. Others here may not have enough experience
dealing with community projects, so may not be able to express
themselves in ways others can understand. My extensive experience has
allowed me to hone this skill, so I say what is on my mind. Others
can then read it easily, and most often actually agree with what I say.
Then, with such agreement, I tend to continue on the same set of
issues that have been confirmed. Suddenly, out of the blue, people
start saying I shouldn't be doing such commentary. Hogwash. We've
agreed, and I'm good at discovering these issues, and communicating
the problem(s) to each person in general, without hardly ever coming
off as an attack. It's only the repeat offenders that I am more
forceful with.
The reason Hans does get more eyes looking at his work, is the *fact*
that he does so much of it.
> For years I've been talking up this approach of doing things in a
> community-driven way and the great things that can happen, and have
> happened with OFBiz, because of the approach. Over the last few
> months I guess I've lost my faith in it. It's interesting that OFBiz
> was born in one recession, but the project doesn't seem to be
> weathering this one very well. I hope things improve and that the
> community will strengthen again, because it's the ONLY that the
> project will progress in any good way. I imagine most of us are
> under considerably more stress than has been the case in recent
> years, and it's a shame to see things going this way. Still, my
> income is almost entirely based on OFBiz and I'm glad of that... it's
> still a better place to be and better software to be working with
> than anything else I'm aware of.
Huh? You think it isn't weathering this one well? What are you
smoking? Ofbiz has gotten *bigger* in the last 1.5 years; more work
is going into it.
I see this community as perfectly strong.
This particular thread/incident is nothing, in the grand scheme of
flamewars that I have been involved with. This issue is kindergarten
in severity. It's just some others seem to have quite thin skin.
>
> -David
>
> P.S. I apologize for my tone in my previous response, I should not
> have sunk so low. I won't do so in the future.
Yet after you did so, and I responded in kind, you then come after me
as the one who started it. Wonderful.
ps: I'm sorry if this email seems a little personal. There were so
many inconsistent view points, that I couldn't let the email go
without a response.
pps: There are several parts to this email that are not directed at
all to any one particular person. They can be applied to anyone, if
you step back a bit and look at the big picture.
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Discussions will always happen, I agree on this.
But if there are frequent frictions caused by different philosophy and vision about OFBiz, as I think is happening recently, then in my opinion we should try, all together, to address them.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about this and trying to identify the patterns around the discussions, in order to try to identify a better way of addressing them.
I think I have identified the following reactions to commits containing code that is not accepted by everyone:
1) harsh discussions, personal attacks etc...
2) discussions on very specific technical details of the commits
3) definition of "policies" in the attempt of defining rules to prevent similar commits to happen again in the future
Even if everyone will (hopefully) agree that #1 is not the way to go, I think that the past experience is clearly showing that sometimes #2 and #3 are not useful as well.
#2 is good to address very specific issues, but if there are very different ideas on how the project should be managed (e.g. how stable the trunk should be; if it is more important to have new features or to have a clean product; if it is important to try to implement modularity or not etc...) then we will always have committers discussing on commits that look completely wrong to them.
Also, I don't like the way "policies" have been used: they are growing and becoming more and more complex, raising the bar for new contributions and committers and making the development effort and participation to project discussion less pleasant (we are more focused on form rather than content). I think that policies are useless if we don't share a common ground, and if we all share it, then most of them will be obvious to everyone or not even required.
Sorry for the long post... all in all what I want to say is that we should probably spend some good time finding an agreement on the general philosophy and goals (code quality, features, freedom, standardization, framework separation etc...) for the project and how to implement them.
Kind regards,
Jacopo
On Feb 4, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Why do you feel you need to solve anything? Let the players sort things out for themselves.
>
> There will always be disagreements in the community. Within the community we have design philosophy differences and cultural differences. Those differences have to be discussed and resolved. There is no need for you to "solve" that.
>
> -Adrian
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>> I don't know how to solve these problems with community interactions, or by another way of looking at it I don't know what we can do to work together better. I've tried a few times to defend people being attacked, or try to point out hopefully more effective ways of doing things. Every time I just get personally attacked in response. I know that doing this is not the role of the PMC Chair, but I've been trying anyway and obviously completely failing and my efforts seem to be doing more harm than good, or that is the feedback I've been seeing. It's great that OFBiz has become what it has in spite of my inability to foster growth and collaboration in the community, and I hope that it will continue to grow and do so because of the nature of the project and community. I really have hope that it will, in spite of what I'm about to write...
Re: Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose:
ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
Why do you feel you need to solve anything? Let the players sort things
out for themselves.
There will always be disagreements in the community. Within the
community we have design philosophy differences and cultural
differences. Those differences have to be discussed and resolved. There
is no need for you to "solve" that.
-Adrian
David E Jones wrote:
> I don't know how to solve these problems with community interactions, or by another way of looking at it I don't know what we can do to work together better. I've tried a few times to defend people being attacked, or try to point out hopefully more effective ways of doing things. Every time I just get personally attacked in response. I know that doing this is not the role of the PMC Chair, but I've been trying anyway and obviously completely failing and my efforts seem to be doing more harm than good, or that is the feedback I've been seeing. It's great that OFBiz has become what it has in spite of my inability to foster growth and collaboration in the community, and I hope that it will continue to grow and do so because of the nature of the project and community. I really have hope that it will, in spite of what I'm about to write...
Community Interactions (was Re: svn commit: r905878 - in
/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml)
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
Go on all you like. The simple point is that you need to tone it down if you want others to be willing to contribute. This is a community-driven project, and you are not the boss. If you want code to be a certain way, then by all means step up and make it that way. Why do you expect others to do thing the way you think they should be done?
Heck, I'm even gun-shy these days and I'm really not interested in developing and contributing much because of the total lack of constructive review and feedback, with this sort of vitriol and nonsense in its place. I even have a couple of offers to do things in the framework, but I've recommended to the client that they take a different course because "doing it right" would involve way too much community push back, and I'm just not that into it. I really don't want to write code according to the rules of Adam Heath or anyone else, especially since there is so much poorly designed and organized stuff constantly going into OFBiz that these "rules" seem to universally miss the point and just throw effort where it won't do ANY good. But don't worry Adam, you're far from the only one and I don't want to miscommunicate here and state or imply that it is you fault, it is most certainly not.
A few days ago I let the PMC know that I'm stepping down as the chair and intend to no longer be as active in the project. There are many reasons for that, but I won't say that this sort of stuff isn't one of them. This kind of stuff just isn't worth it to me personally.
I don't know how to solve these problems with community interactions, or by another way of looking at it I don't know what we can do to work together better. I've tried a few times to defend people being attacked, or try to point out hopefully more effective ways of doing things. Every time I just get personally attacked in response. I know that doing this is not the role of the PMC Chair, but I've been trying anyway and obviously completely failing and my efforts seem to be doing more harm than good, or that is the feedback I've been seeing. It's great that OFBiz has become what it has in spite of my inability to foster growth and collaboration in the community, and I hope that it will continue to grow and do so because of the nature of the project and community. I really have hope that it will, in spite of what I'm about to write...
For years I've been talking up this approach of doing things in a community-driven way and the great things that can happen, and have happened with OFBiz, because of the approach. Over the last few months I guess I've lost my faith in it. It's interesting that OFBiz was born in one recession, but the project doesn't seem to be weathering this one very well. I hope things improve and that the community will strengthen again, because it's the ONLY that the project will progress in any good way. I imagine most of us are under considerably more stress than has been the case in recent years, and it's a shame to see things going this way. Still, my income is almost entirely based on OFBiz and I'm glad of that... it's still a better place to be and better software to be working with than anything else I'm aware of.
-David
P.S. I apologize for my tone in my previous response, I should not have sunk so low. I won't do so in the future. I do respect you Adam, and continue to send prospects your way (or to Brainfood) when clients ask about recommendations, because I know you guys do great work over there.
On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:55 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> Wow, how about we all calm it down a few levels, despite the biblical references I don't think the end is nigh quite just yet and it's safe to relax a little bit.
>>
>> One downside of buildbot is that everybody is acutely aware of any failures that occur regardless of how quickly they are fixed, but hopefully that will promote better practices without the need for this sort of intervention and the subsequent storm that seems to ensue.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 2/02/2010, at 10:22 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:53 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> hansbak@apache.org wrote:
>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>> Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
>>>>>>> New Revision: 905878
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev
>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>> fix build error reported by buildbot
>>>>>> How did you not discover this before you commited it? Did you not do
>>>>>> a clean-all/run-install/run-tests? For such a large commit, this kind
>>>>>> of error is inexcusable.
>>>>> Come now Cardinal Heath, some level of forgiveness can surely be found in even the coldest of hearts, and do we not all hope that even the most depraved and ignorant among us is deserving of some level of empathy?
>>>> Seriously? Really? You are suggesting that renaming a
>>>> component(which is essentially what this is), shouldn't do a standard
>>>> clean/test run?
>>> That's absolutely ridiculous. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. Get your head out of...
>
> Um, you saying I should forgive this error implies that the error
> isn't that big a deal, and that it was ok that it happened, and we
> should just pat Hans on the back, and put on our big red clown smiles.
>
>>>> There were several other things I could have commentted on, code
>>>> quality, design, whatever. Those would have been opinions, when you
>>>> really got down to it. I didn't. I commented on procedure.
>>> Great, so you chose a personal attack over reviewing things that might actually be helpful. If that's the high road I'll stick to the low one.
>
> (pre-script; this paragraph was written last, after everything else)Do
> you not pay attention? I try to not do personal attacks, and word
> things such that they apply to anyone who may be happening to read it.
> This applies to the time when the email is written, and years later
> when someone does a google search and finds the mail, or, when someone
> reads a changelog at some point in the future. I do this consciously.
> I have done it repeatedly on this list. I have explained it as well.
> But this was one case where I did not do this, and again, did it on
> purpose. I'm quite polite during these discussions. Yet, when I
> point out a very obvious problem, one that does get repeated by Hans,
> instead of saying that Hans made a mistake, you do a personal attack
> on me. Again, and I really really really hate saying this, but you
> need to take your head of out of your ass(damn it, I wish I hadn't had
> to say that; sometimes, a slap in the face is the only way to get some
> people to shut the hell up, and think about what they are saying, and
> how it is coming across). You, David, came across *entirely* to strong.
>
> How could I comment on things I know nothing about? I don't use any
> ebay code in any customer deployment. But the procedure I commented
> on is followed by everyone. I reference the doc I posted a while
> back, about being courteous to others, trying to do no harm.
>
> I choose to comment on what I know, and that is a simple
> clean-all/compile phase.
>
> Yes, I could have gone into his large commit, looking over stylistic
> issues; ie, maybe there is a spot that UtilValidate.isEmpty could be
> used, or maybe there are tabs instead of spaces, or a way to use an
> enhanced for loop. That's not the point. The point was that this
> commit broke ofbiz for others who are doing work on it. Stylistic
> issues with the code don't affect anyone else, other than the original
> author. Those can be discussed later. Broken compiles are just
> unforgivable. Outside of the occasional issue(which, as I have
> maintained, depends on the sizze of the change).
>
> For reference, I just did a revert(using git, love this tool), and it
> did fail. Yes, this may not have been detected if you were doing a
> commit from a dirty checkout. But I do pristine testing before
> committing, can't others, esp. for larger commits.
>
> Wholesale moving of entire code subdirectories is an extremely
> destabilising event, and certain steps should be taken to limit how
> much extra work others in the project have to do.
>
>>>> I admit I haven't been perfect with commits. I have even committed
>>>> stuff that has failed to compile. I admit I'm not perfect. However,
>>>> the probability of that decreases with the size of the commit/change.
>>> I was going to stop above, but sorry, this is bull shit and a totally ridiculous idea. In fact, haven't you even caused problems BECAUSE of trying stick to the evidently sanctified approach of splitting your commits into tiny chunks?
>>>
>>> What's more... do you test after each commit to make sure that interim updates won't be broken? How can you possibly say that this will cause less problems.
>
> Um, very often I do. For any large commit set where I know it could
> cause problems with external entities, I do interim testing at each
> commit level, clean-all/run-install/run-tests. This is why I love
> git, because it makes this job simpler for me.
>
> I don't do it for all my flood commits, as generally the earlier
> commits in a series are not changing code, just adding new functions.
>
> Even before I started using git, even before I ever got involved in
> ofbiz(this is going back 5+ years), I would do a bunch of work on some
> project, then flood commit manually, copying my svn checkout, cleaning
> it so it was completely pristine, and manually retyping whatever
> feature I had done into separate commits. I did this often when I was
> working on dpkg(yes, the dpkg in debian).
>
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Tue, 2/2/10, Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com> wrote:
> Um, very often I do. For any large commit set where I
> know it could
> cause problems with external entities, I do interim testing
> at each
> commit level, clean-all/run-install/run-tests.
This process can't be stressed enough. I always run ant clean-all and ant run-install before committing. I even wrote multi-threaded demo data loading patches so I could cycle through these steps more quickly before committing. There might be bugs in my commit, but one thing I can be sure of is that it will build.
-Adrian
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml
ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Scott Gray wrote:
> Wow, how about we all calm it down a few levels, despite the biblical references I don't think the end is nigh quite just yet and it's safe to relax a little bit.
>
> One downside of buildbot is that everybody is acutely aware of any failures that occur regardless of how quickly they are fixed, but hopefully that will promote better practices without the need for this sort of intervention and the subsequent storm that seems to ensue.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 2/02/2010, at 10:22 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:53 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hansbak@apache.org wrote:
>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>> Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
>>>>>> New Revision: 905878
>>>>>>
>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev
>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>> fix build error reported by buildbot
>>>>> How did you not discover this before you commited it? Did you not do
>>>>> a clean-all/run-install/run-tests? For such a large commit, this kind
>>>>> of error is inexcusable.
>>>> Come now Cardinal Heath, some level of forgiveness can surely be found in even the coldest of hearts, and do we not all hope that even the most depraved and ignorant among us is deserving of some level of empathy?
>>> Seriously? Really? You are suggesting that renaming a
>>> component(which is essentially what this is), shouldn't do a standard
>>> clean/test run?
>> That's absolutely ridiculous. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. Get your head out of...
Um, you saying I should forgive this error implies that the error
isn't that big a deal, and that it was ok that it happened, and we
should just pat Hans on the back, and put on our big red clown smiles.
>>> There were several other things I could have commentted on, code
>>> quality, design, whatever. Those would have been opinions, when you
>>> really got down to it. I didn't. I commented on procedure.
>> Great, so you chose a personal attack over reviewing things that might actually be helpful. If that's the high road I'll stick to the low one.
(pre-script; this paragraph was written last, after everything else)Do
you not pay attention? I try to not do personal attacks, and word
things such that they apply to anyone who may be happening to read it.
This applies to the time when the email is written, and years later
when someone does a google search and finds the mail, or, when someone
reads a changelog at some point in the future. I do this consciously.
I have done it repeatedly on this list. I have explained it as well.
But this was one case where I did not do this, and again, did it on
purpose. I'm quite polite during these discussions. Yet, when I
point out a very obvious problem, one that does get repeated by Hans,
instead of saying that Hans made a mistake, you do a personal attack
on me. Again, and I really really really hate saying this, but you
need to take your head of out of your ass(damn it, I wish I hadn't had
to say that; sometimes, a slap in the face is the only way to get some
people to shut the hell up, and think about what they are saying, and
how it is coming across). You, David, came across *entirely* to strong.
How could I comment on things I know nothing about? I don't use any
ebay code in any customer deployment. But the procedure I commented
on is followed by everyone. I reference the doc I posted a while
back, about being courteous to others, trying to do no harm.
I choose to comment on what I know, and that is a simple
clean-all/compile phase.
Yes, I could have gone into his large commit, looking over stylistic
issues; ie, maybe there is a spot that UtilValidate.isEmpty could be
used, or maybe there are tabs instead of spaces, or a way to use an
enhanced for loop. That's not the point. The point was that this
commit broke ofbiz for others who are doing work on it. Stylistic
issues with the code don't affect anyone else, other than the original
author. Those can be discussed later. Broken compiles are just
unforgivable. Outside of the occasional issue(which, as I have
maintained, depends on the sizze of the change).
For reference, I just did a revert(using git, love this tool), and it
did fail. Yes, this may not have been detected if you were doing a
commit from a dirty checkout. But I do pristine testing before
committing, can't others, esp. for larger commits.
Wholesale moving of entire code subdirectories is an extremely
destabilising event, and certain steps should be taken to limit how
much extra work others in the project have to do.
>>> I admit I haven't been perfect with commits. I have even committed
>>> stuff that has failed to compile. I admit I'm not perfect. However,
>>> the probability of that decreases with the size of the commit/change.
>> I was going to stop above, but sorry, this is bull shit and a totally ridiculous idea. In fact, haven't you even caused problems BECAUSE of trying stick to the evidently sanctified approach of splitting your commits into tiny chunks?
>>
>> What's more... do you test after each commit to make sure that interim updates won't be broken? How can you possibly say that this will cause less problems.
Um, very often I do. For any large commit set where I know it could
cause problems with external entities, I do interim testing at each
commit level, clean-all/run-install/run-tests. This is why I love
git, because it makes this job simpler for me.
I don't do it for all my flood commits, as generally the earlier
commits in a series are not changing code, just adding new functions.
Even before I started using git, even before I ever got involved in
ofbiz(this is going back 5+ years), I would do a bunch of work on some
project, then flood commit manually, copying my svn checkout, cleaning
it so it was completely pristine, and manually retyping whatever
feature I had done into separate commits. I did this often when I was
working on dpkg(yes, the dpkg in debian).
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Wow, how about we all calm it down a few levels, despite the biblical references I don't think the end is nigh quite just yet and it's safe to relax a little bit.
One downside of buildbot is that everybody is acutely aware of any failures that occur regardless of how quickly they are fixed, but hopefully that will promote better practices without the need for this sort of intervention and the subsequent storm that seems to ensue.
Regards
Scott
On 2/02/2010, at 10:22 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:53 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>> hansbak@apache.org wrote:
>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>> Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
>>>>> New Revision: 905878
>>>>>
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> fix build error reported by buildbot
>>>> How did you not discover this before you commited it? Did you not do
>>>> a clean-all/run-install/run-tests? For such a large commit, this kind
>>>> of error is inexcusable.
>>>
>>> Come now Cardinal Heath, some level of forgiveness can surely be found in even the coldest of hearts, and do we not all hope that even the most depraved and ignorant among us is deserving of some level of empathy?
>>
>> Seriously? Really? You are suggesting that renaming a
>> component(which is essentially what this is), shouldn't do a standard
>> clean/test run?
>
> That's absolutely ridiculous. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. Get your head out of...
>
>> There were several other things I could have commentted on, code
>> quality, design, whatever. Those would have been opinions, when you
>> really got down to it. I didn't. I commented on procedure.
>
> Great, so you chose a personal attack over reviewing things that might actually be helpful. If that's the high road I'll stick to the low one.
>
> -David
>
>
>> I admit I haven't been perfect with commits. I have even committed
>> stuff that has failed to compile. I admit I'm not perfect. However,
>> the probability of that decreases with the size of the commit/change.
>
> I was going to stop above, but sorry, this is bull shit and a totally ridiculous idea. In fact, haven't you even caused problems BECAUSE of trying stick to the evidently sanctified approach of splitting your commits into tiny chunks?
>
> What's more... do you test after each commit to make sure that interim updates won't be broken? How can you possibly say that this will cause less problems.
>
>
>> This commit that was done should have caused anyone doing it to step
>> back, and think for a moment, dot the eyes, cross the tees, so to speak.
>>
>> I have overlooked lots of things. I try to live by example. You have
>> all seen me do very small incremental commits. Before those commit
>> floods occur, do you think I haven't done at least the very basic of
>> testing? Do you even think I created those commits in that exact same
>> order? I will do a bunch of work in a bunch of files, and not
>> actually commit anything 'til it all works. I then branch, and retype
>> those changes, so that others can follow the change in design, in much
>> easier to comprehend chunks. I don't suggest everyone go to that level.
>>
>> I also don't comment on everything I see that is wrong. Sometimes I
>> just silently fix issues.
>>
>> But this issue is just one of the things that I can't allow to slide.
>>
>>> Please, Your Grace, do not cast out a soul for so little.
>>
>> This isn't so little.
>>
>> If you were intending your email to be humorous, or sarcastic, then
>> you may have missed the mark a bit. And, as we all know(I hate doing
>> this, singling him out), this is a repeat problem with Hans.
>>
>
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose:
ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:53 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> David E Jones wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> hansbak@apache.org wrote:
>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>> Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
>>>> New Revision: 905878
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> fix build error reported by buildbot
>>> How did you not discover this before you commited it? Did you not do
>>> a clean-all/run-install/run-tests? For such a large commit, this kind
>>> of error is inexcusable.
>>
>> Come now Cardinal Heath, some level of forgiveness can surely be found in even the coldest of hearts, and do we not all hope that even the most depraved and ignorant among us is deserving of some level of empathy?
>
> Seriously? Really? You are suggesting that renaming a
> component(which is essentially what this is), shouldn't do a standard
> clean/test run?
That's absolutely ridiculous. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. Get your head out of...
> There were several other things I could have commentted on, code
> quality, design, whatever. Those would have been opinions, when you
> really got down to it. I didn't. I commented on procedure.
Great, so you chose a personal attack over reviewing things that might actually be helpful. If that's the high road I'll stick to the low one.
-David
> I admit I haven't been perfect with commits. I have even committed
> stuff that has failed to compile. I admit I'm not perfect. However,
> the probability of that decreases with the size of the commit/change.
I was going to stop above, but sorry, this is bull shit and a totally ridiculous idea. In fact, haven't you even caused problems BECAUSE of trying stick to the evidently sanctified approach of splitting your commits into tiny chunks?
What's more... do you test after each commit to make sure that interim updates won't be broken? How can you possibly say that this will cause less problems.
> This commit that was done should have caused anyone doing it to step
> back, and think for a moment, dot the eyes, cross the tees, so to speak.
>
> I have overlooked lots of things. I try to live by example. You have
> all seen me do very small incremental commits. Before those commit
> floods occur, do you think I haven't done at least the very basic of
> testing? Do you even think I created those commits in that exact same
> order? I will do a bunch of work in a bunch of files, and not
> actually commit anything 'til it all works. I then branch, and retype
> those changes, so that others can follow the change in design, in much
> easier to comprehend chunks. I don't suggest everyone go to that level.
>
> I also don't comment on everything I see that is wrong. Sometimes I
> just silently fix issues.
>
> But this issue is just one of the things that I can't allow to slide.
>
>> Please, Your Grace, do not cast out a soul for so little.
>
> This isn't so little.
>
> If you were intending your email to be humorous, or sarcastic, then
> you may have missed the mark a bit. And, as we all know(I hate doing
> this, singling him out), this is a repeat problem with Hans.
>
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml
ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Adrian Crum wrote:
> *gasp*
>
> You commented on the committer, not on the commit.
>
> *renounces faith in Heathenism*
Exactly. I do it so rarely, that when I do, I must mean it. I have a
high tolerance for this stuff, but this time I just had to speak out.
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@free.fr>.
From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@yahoo.com>
> --- On Tue, 2/2/10, Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com> wrote:
>> From: Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
>> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010, 9:53 PM
>> David E Jones wrote:
>> > On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>> >
>> >> hansbak@apache.org
>> wrote:
>> >>> Author: hansbak
>> >>> Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
>> >>> New Revision: 905878
>> >>>
>> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev
>> >>> Log:
>> >>> fix build error reported by buildbot
>> >> How did you not discover this before you commited
>> it? Did you not do
>> >> a clean-all/run-install/run-tests? For such
>> a large commit, this kind
>> >> of error is inexcusable.
>> >
>> > Come now Cardinal Heath, some level of forgiveness can
>> surely be found in even the coldest of hearts, and do we not
>> all hope that even the most depraved and ignorant among us
>> is deserving of some level of empathy?
>>
>> Seriously? Really? You are suggesting that
>> renaming a
>> component(which is essentially what this is), shouldn't do
>> a standard
>> clean/test run?
>>
>> There were several other things I could have commentted on,
>> code
>> quality, design, whatever. Those would have been
>> opinions, when you
>> really got down to it. I didn't. I commented on
>> procedure.
>>
>> I admit I haven't been perfect with commits. I have
>> even committed
>> stuff that has failed to compile. I admit I'm not
>> perfect. However,
>> the probability of that decreases with the size of the
>> commit/change.
>> This commit that was done should have caused anyone doing
>> it to step
>> back, and think for a moment, dot the eyes, cross the tees,
>> so to speak.
>>
>> I have overlooked lots of things. I try to live by
>> example. You have
>> all seen me do very small incremental commits. Before
>> those commit
>> floods occur, do you think I haven't done at least the very
>> basic of
>> testing? Do you even think I created those commits in
>> that exact same
>> order? I will do a bunch of work in a bunch of files,
>> and not
>> actually commit anything 'til it all works. I then
>> branch, and retype
>> those changes, so that others can follow the change in
>> design, in much
>> easier to comprehend chunks. I don't suggest everyone
>> go to that level.
>>
>> I also don't comment on everything I see that is
>> wrong. Sometimes I
>> just silently fix issues.
>>
>> But this issue is just one of the things that I can't allow
>> to slide.
>>
>> > Please, Your Grace, do not cast out a soul for so
>> little.
>>
>> This isn't so little.
>>
>> If you were intending your email to be humorous, or
>> sarcastic, then
>> you may have missed the mark a bit. And, as we all
>> know(I hate doing
>> this, singling him out), this is a repeat problem with
>> Hans.
>
> *gasp*
>
> You commented on the committer, not on the commit.
>
> *renounces faith in Heathenism*
:D
Jacques
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Tue, 2/2/10, Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com> wrote:
> From: Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010, 9:53 PM
> David E Jones wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> >
> >> hansbak@apache.org
> wrote:
> >>> Author: hansbak
> >>> Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
> >>> New Revision: 905878
> >>>
> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev
> >>> Log:
> >>> fix build error reported by buildbot
> >> How did you not discover this before you commited
> it? Did you not do
> >> a clean-all/run-install/run-tests? For such
> a large commit, this kind
> >> of error is inexcusable.
> >
> > Come now Cardinal Heath, some level of forgiveness can
> surely be found in even the coldest of hearts, and do we not
> all hope that even the most depraved and ignorant among us
> is deserving of some level of empathy?
>
> Seriously? Really? You are suggesting that
> renaming a
> component(which is essentially what this is), shouldn't do
> a standard
> clean/test run?
>
> There were several other things I could have commentted on,
> code
> quality, design, whatever. Those would have been
> opinions, when you
> really got down to it. I didn't. I commented on
> procedure.
>
> I admit I haven't been perfect with commits. I have
> even committed
> stuff that has failed to compile. I admit I'm not
> perfect. However,
> the probability of that decreases with the size of the
> commit/change.
> This commit that was done should have caused anyone doing
> it to step
> back, and think for a moment, dot the eyes, cross the tees,
> so to speak.
>
> I have overlooked lots of things. I try to live by
> example. You have
> all seen me do very small incremental commits. Before
> those commit
> floods occur, do you think I haven't done at least the very
> basic of
> testing? Do you even think I created those commits in
> that exact same
> order? I will do a bunch of work in a bunch of files,
> and not
> actually commit anything 'til it all works. I then
> branch, and retype
> those changes, so that others can follow the change in
> design, in much
> easier to comprehend chunks. I don't suggest everyone
> go to that level.
>
> I also don't comment on everything I see that is
> wrong. Sometimes I
> just silently fix issues.
>
> But this issue is just one of the things that I can't allow
> to slide.
>
> > Please, Your Grace, do not cast out a soul for so
> little.
>
> This isn't so little.
>
> If you were intending your email to be humorous, or
> sarcastic, then
> you may have missed the mark a bit. And, as we all
> know(I hate doing
> this, singling him out), this is a repeat problem with
> Hans.
*gasp*
You commented on the committer, not on the commit.
*renounces faith in Heathenism*
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml
ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
David E Jones wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> hansbak@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: hansbak
>>> Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
>>> New Revision: 905878
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> fix build error reported by buildbot
>> How did you not discover this before you commited it? Did you not do
>> a clean-all/run-install/run-tests? For such a large commit, this kind
>> of error is inexcusable.
>
> Come now Cardinal Heath, some level of forgiveness can surely be found in even the coldest of hearts, and do we not all hope that even the most depraved and ignorant among us is deserving of some level of empathy?
Seriously? Really? You are suggesting that renaming a
component(which is essentially what this is), shouldn't do a standard
clean/test run?
There were several other things I could have commentted on, code
quality, design, whatever. Those would have been opinions, when you
really got down to it. I didn't. I commented on procedure.
I admit I haven't been perfect with commits. I have even committed
stuff that has failed to compile. I admit I'm not perfect. However,
the probability of that decreases with the size of the commit/change.
This commit that was done should have caused anyone doing it to step
back, and think for a moment, dot the eyes, cross the tees, so to speak.
I have overlooked lots of things. I try to live by example. You have
all seen me do very small incremental commits. Before those commit
floods occur, do you think I haven't done at least the very basic of
testing? Do you even think I created those commits in that exact same
order? I will do a bunch of work in a bunch of files, and not
actually commit anything 'til it all works. I then branch, and retype
those changes, so that others can follow the change in design, in much
easier to comprehend chunks. I don't suggest everyone go to that level.
I also don't comment on everything I see that is wrong. Sometimes I
just silently fix issues.
But this issue is just one of the things that I can't allow to slide.
> Please, Your Grace, do not cast out a soul for so little.
This isn't so little.
If you were intending your email to be humorous, or sarcastic, then
you may have missed the mark a bit. And, as we all know(I hate doing
this, singling him out), this is a repeat problem with Hans.
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose:
ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> hansbak@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: hansbak
>> Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
>> New Revision: 905878
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev
>> Log:
>> fix build error reported by buildbot
>
> How did you not discover this before you commited it? Did you not do
> a clean-all/run-install/run-tests? For such a large commit, this kind
> of error is inexcusable.
Come now Cardinal Heath, some level of forgiveness can surely be found in even the coldest of hearts, and do we not all hope that even the most depraved and ignorant among us is deserving of some level of empathy?
Please, Your Grace, do not cast out a soul for so little.
-David
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml
ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Hans Bakker wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 00:21 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>>> 2. if you would have the lib file on your disk, the build would not
>>> fail.
>> Huh? It was not possible for this to succeed. How did it succeed for
>> you? In a word, it didn't, because you didn't even try.
>>
>
> so you tell me that i am lying? You are going to far.
> if you have a lib dir in the ebay component locally the compile will be
> successful.
I never said you lied. But the commit does *not* succeed. If you had
a lib folder, then your commit wasn't pristine, and is not what other
developers would see.
When anyone breaks a commit, so that others can't even run a compile,
that is the worst things to occur. Others don't know what you(general
you) was trying to do. It would take them a long time to get up to
speed, trying to figure out what you were attempting. We all know how
we hate interruptions, how much it affects our ability to get
something done, and get back up to speed on what we were working on
initially.
If a little effort is done by the original author at the time, you can
then save time for everyone else. Wouldn't we all like to not have
these email discussions take place? The solution is simple; everyone
needs to be more careful. I take a bit of personal pride when I see I
do a flood commit, no one comments on any code issues, buildbot
doesn't complain about errors, and no one else does. I actively try
to do different ways of breaking stuff I have done, to make certain I
have covered all cases.
ps: I hate saying this; people assume everyone else is like
themselves. You saying that I called you a liar can fall into that
category. It shows me more about you.
pps: Yes, I am pissed about all this. This was an obvious problem,
thet category of which *has* been repeated over and over. This
problem was provably wrong. Yet, instead of talking about *that*,
people are attacking me. There was nothing wrong with what I did.
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On 2/02/2010, at 10:58 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> it would be really nice if you could try to work together and not always
> try to show that you are technically capable.
That is certainly not my intention and it bothers me greatly if it comes across that way. My reasoning was that Adam's position was in dispute by you and I agreed with his assumption, nothing more. I sometimes (but not always) find that when I send an opinion to the lists that nobody comes along to support it even if they agree with it and I'm left standing alone. This email was nothing more than an attempt to do what I wish other people (especially non-HotWax people because unfortunately that seems to carry less weight due perceived bias) would do for me.
Regards
Scott
> You already showed your
> technical capability several times and we appreciate what you are doing
> in that area, it helped the project a lot.
>
> I can only say that it did compile here and the existing lib file could
> be the reason. This happened several times to my people when they asked
> me to commit a change.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 22:30 -0800, Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 2/02/2010, at 10:25 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 00:21 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 2. if you would have the lib file on your disk, the build would not
>>>>> fail.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? It was not possible for this to succeed. How did it succeed for
>>>> you? In a word, it didn't, because you didn't even try.
>>>>
>>>
>>> so you tell me that i am lying? You are going to far.
>>> if you have a lib dir in the ebay component locally the compile will be
>>> successful.
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but your commit removed that directory, how could it still be there when you run ant before committing?
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose:
ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Hi Scott,
it would be really nice if you could try to work together and not always
try to show that you are technically capable. You already showed your
technical capability several times and we appreciate what you are doing
in that area, it helped the project a lot.
I can only say that it did compile here and the existing lib file could
be the reason. This happened several times to my people when they asked
me to commit a change.
Regards,
Hans
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 22:30 -0800, Scott Gray wrote:
> On 2/02/2010, at 10:25 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 00:21 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> >
> >>> 2. if you would have the lib file on your disk, the build would not
> >>> fail.
> >>
> >> Huh? It was not possible for this to succeed. How did it succeed for
> >> you? In a word, it didn't, because you didn't even try.
> >>
> >
> > so you tell me that i am lying? You are going to far.
> > if you have a lib dir in the ebay component locally the compile will be
> > successful.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but your commit removed that directory, how could it still be there when you run ant before committing?
>
> Regards
> Scott
--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On 2/02/2010, at 10:25 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 00:21 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>>> 2. if you would have the lib file on your disk, the build would not
>>> fail.
>>
>> Huh? It was not possible for this to succeed. How did it succeed for
>> you? In a word, it didn't, because you didn't even try.
>>
>
> so you tell me that i am lying? You are going to far.
> if you have a lib dir in the ebay component locally the compile will be
> successful.
Maybe I'm missing something, but your commit removed that directory, how could it still be there when you run ant before committing?
Regards
Scott
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose:
ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 00:21 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > 2. if you would have the lib file on your disk, the build would not
> > fail.
>
> Huh? It was not possible for this to succeed. How did it succeed for
> you? In a word, it didn't, because you didn't even try.
>
so you tell me that i am lying? You are going to far.
if you have a lib dir in the ebay component locally the compile will be
successful.
Hans
--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml
ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
Hans Bakker wrote:
> Really amazing Adam,
>
> 1. the commit has no functional changes it is a move.
Wrong, it changes things, you have to verify that they work. Really.
A simple clean/build would have found it.
> 2. if you would have the lib file on your disk, the build would not
> fail.
Huh? It was not possible for this to succeed. How did it succeed for
you? In a word, it didn't, because you didn't even try.
> 3. the build error was corrected in less than an hour.
That doesn't matter. You need to be more careful.
This was a problem with procedure, a very simple procedure. One that
wasn't followed.
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose:
ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Really amazing Adam,
1. the commit has no functional changes it is a move.
2. if you would have the lib file on your disk, the build would not
fail.
3. the build error was corrected in less than an hour.
Regards,
Hans
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 23:07 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> hansbak@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: hansbak
> > Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
> > New Revision: 905878
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev
> > Log:
> > fix build error reported by buildbot
>
> How did you not discover this before you commited it? Did you not do
> a clean-all/run-install/run-tests? For such a large commit, this kind
> of error is inexcusable.
>
>
> >
> > Modified:
> > ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml
> > ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
> >
> > Modified: ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml?rev=905878&r1=905877&r2=905878&view=diff
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml (original)
> > +++ ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
> > @@ -29,7 +29,6 @@
> > <property name="name" value="ofbiz-ebay"/>
> >
> > <path id="local.class.path">
> > - <fileset dir="${lib.dir}" includes="*.jar"/>
> > <fileset dir="../../framework/base/lib" includes="*.jar"/>
> > <fileset dir="../../framework/base/lib/commons" includes="*.jar"/>
> > <fileset dir="../../framework/base/lib/j2eespecs" includes="*.jar"/>
> >
> > Modified: ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml?rev=905878&r1=905877&r2=905878&view=diff
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml (original)
> > +++ ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
> > @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
> > xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/ofbiz-component.xsd">
> > <resource-loader name="main" type="component"/>
> > <classpath type="dir" location="config"/>
> > - <classpath type="jar" location="lib/*"/>
> > <classpath type="jar" location="build/lib/*"/>
> >
> > <entity-resource type="model" reader-name="main" loader="main" location="entitydef/entitymodel.xml"/>
> >
> >
>
--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml
ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
hansbak@apache.org wrote:
> Author: hansbak
> Date: Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
> New Revision: 905878
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=905878&view=rev
> Log:
> fix build error reported by buildbot
How did you not discover this before you commited it? Did you not do
a clean-all/run-install/run-tests? For such a large commit, this kind
of error is inexcusable.
>
> Modified:
> ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml
> ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
>
> Modified: ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml?rev=905878&r1=905877&r2=905878&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml (original)
> +++ ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebay/build.xml Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
> @@ -29,7 +29,6 @@
> <property name="name" value="ofbiz-ebay"/>
>
> <path id="local.class.path">
> - <fileset dir="${lib.dir}" includes="*.jar"/>
> <fileset dir="../../framework/base/lib" includes="*.jar"/>
> <fileset dir="../../framework/base/lib/commons" includes="*.jar"/>
> <fileset dir="../../framework/base/lib/j2eespecs" includes="*.jar"/>
>
> Modified: ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml?rev=905878&r1=905877&r2=905878&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml (original)
> +++ ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml Wed Feb 3 03:58:13 2010
> @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
> xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/ofbiz-component.xsd">
> <resource-loader name="main" type="component"/>
> <classpath type="dir" location="config"/>
> - <classpath type="jar" location="lib/*"/>
> <classpath type="jar" location="build/lib/*"/>
>
> <entity-resource type="model" reader-name="main" loader="main" location="entitydef/entitymodel.xml"/>
>
>