Re: svn commit: r502824 - /ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/product/inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml

[Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>]

Please please guys, just drop this, 

I'm sure none of us who are having to delete all this nonsense really
care.

- Andrew


On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 06:56 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> Tim, Jacopo,
> 
> Well, since you put this in the open, I guess I might as well re-examine my previous posts.
> 
> In Jacopo's case, it all did start out with me appreciating his help. In one of my first posts, I 
> made the mistake of recalling that it was Jacopo who corrected me on the "please use absolute path 
> in your diff/patches". Jacques informed us it was actually him. Incidentally, you'll note that I 
> always use myself and my own mistakes to illustrate "how things should be done". That particular 
> post was in a thread where David was suggesting a pre-commit review or lamenting the lack thereof.
> 
> Anyway, you'll see the same styles everywhere. Any to-the-point criticisms are first directed at 
> myself, sometimes even almost deviating from the truth in cases where I wasn't quite able to find 
> an example that qualifies myself as a target for said criticisms. At times, I may even have 
> stretched the truth about myself in order to "smooth things out", and could've been accused of 
> hypocrisy. For eg, I do have the tendency to admit to wrongdoing to some extent in order to "let 
> the dust settle". I wouldn't state the exact audience that witnessed this style (and the responses 
> to it) on this ML, but I can tell you that you can consider my tact universally acknowledged (and 
> in some cases even disapproved of, because the tact gave way to ill reason and bordered on letting 
> dishonesty take the final note.) Yes, my boss or bosses (future/potential ones) are in that 
> audience. Part of that audience also includes Singaporean companies deciding whether they want to 
> go with OFBiz.
> 
> (And for the record, to be clearly honest for a change, things are not looking good at all. Yes, 
> they're watching every message I type, so you should know I'm your biggest proponent here. Stuck 
> in a difficult in-between place.)
> 
> Back to Jacopo's case. One of the first "good rubs" with Jacopo was with the Product Variant BOMs 
> help from Jacopo. In fact, about the biggest reason my current boss is still with OFBiz is because 
> of his work in Manufacturing module. As I mentioned in a post to David, we're watching Jacopo; I 
> recommended him to cover for me in tech support once my project is done. After all, my boss is in 
> manufacturing and Jacopo has done a lot there. Despite his recent display (we're still comparing 
> with his past posts way back for a more holistic assessment), I still think he's the right candidate.
> 
> I'm not going to ask the ML (or anybody, for that matter) to admonish him for his behavior. He's 
> done a lot for OFBiz, and I'd honestly say he should take his Manufacturing module away with him 
> if we're to ask him to go away. I don't want him to go away. I don't want to be put in that 
> difficult position, so that's why I wouldn't want David in that position either. Well there I go 
> again, that same style. :) If Jacopo goes, OFBiz will not hold enough value for me and my bosses.
> 
> As for really rubbing some people the wrong way, I guess it has a lot to do with the fact that 
> I've weaned myself (and my bosses and future bosses) from dependence on ML tech support (yes, it 
> was officially deemed a non-support channel some weeks back). And possibly even more because I 
> unwittingly "damaged" the business model for some people here. I honestly didn't know at first the 
> technical references for OFBiz are only sold commercially. Upon realizing it, I had then consulted 
> David privately to ask if there's anything I can do (eg NOT publish my altruistic 
> yet-to-be-written Engineer's Manual) if it meant righting an imbalance in "give-and-take" 
> situation between OFBiz and users. David said it's Undersun that's profiting from those 
> commercially sold tech references, not OFBiz.
> 
> (I hope the dev list doesn't have paid customers, because some did complain about the tech 
> references sold. I have never seen those references, and can't comment. Would've wanted this post 
> to be private, but maybe I should really be perfectly honest for a change. Bosses would fry me if 
> they bought those references owing to my comments or the lack thereof, so I have to say I'm 
> neither arguing against nor for those references.)
> 
> Please understand that I had no option to avoid taking apart OFBiz and weaning my bosses from 
> reliance on a "difficult channel" for tech support. It was about the only way I could keep them 
> from chucking OFBiz in the trash. And maybe I should be honest (but I thought I'd mentioned this 
> several times) about my occupation; I'm a LEGAL reverse-engineer by trade (not just Java 
> compiled/source codes). If there's an implicit ban againt reverse-engineers in ML, please let me 
> know and I'll gladly oblige. This isn't my grandfather's ML. (There, same style again.)
> 
> I will certainly take your suggestions seriously, and heed your call for us to "come 
> [cooperate/play] together". However, I do hope the ML can appreciate that I'm caught in a 
> difficult in-between position, and my comments on the ML cannot deviate too far from "honest 
> business sense". I'd have thought my arguments for OFBiz are all the more potent precisely because 
> of my stark objectivity. And that appears to be the case (for now), since my bosses haven't turned 
> away from OFBiz yet.
> 
> I hope that this thread being on the dev list will mean it will stop here. I wouldn't want another 
> "baggin on OFBiz" session (you know my stakes in OFBiz). If it does spark a rowdy discussion, I'll 
> be the first to call for a stop to that.
> 
> One important note about the ML. I have noticed it's probably hard for some people to scan through 
> surrounding contexts (posts related to a post) when responding to a post. Perhaps that's where the 
> problem is?
> 
> I hope we understand each other more from this.
> 
> Jonathon
> 
> Tim Ruppert wrote:
> > Jonathon as an innocent bystander, all I can say is that with every word 
> > you type you are rubbing people the wrong way.  Please just take a 
> > moment to read thru your posts before hitting send - and think about the 
> > fact that there are tons of people here from different backgrounds who 
> > are pushing towards the same goal.
> > 
> > I realize that your intentions are good and that you're working towards 
> > that same goal, but understand that if you're rubbing everyone the wrong 
> > way - it might not be them, but how you're choosing to phrase your 
> > questions, comments and concerns.
> > 
> > All I ask is that you think about what you're saying and where you 
> > really want things to go and phrase things accordingly.  I'm not saying 
> > that all responses to your digging have been phrased smoothly - but you 
> > can only control yourself - so let's all give it a try.
> > 
> > This is not totally relevant, but I believe I wrote this up sometime 
> > around the last episode people rubbing others the wrong way on the dev 
> > list 
> > - http://www.nabble.com/Why's-everybody-baggin'-on-OFBiz-lately-t3081858.html
> > 
> > Anyways, I hope you read this for what it is - a request to come 
> > together - and you take my suggestions seriously.  Thanks for posting 
> > Jonathon and we look forward to more helpful things out of your in the 
> > future.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Tim
> > --
> > Tim Ruppert
> > HotWax Media
> > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> > 
> > o:801.649.6594
> > f:801.649.6595
> > 
> > 
> > On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:27 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > 
> >> Jacopo,
> >>
> >> No, I'm not trolling. Are you?
> >>
> >> If you meant the last concise post to you, it's because I know you're 
> >> really really busy. Just a sincere effort to cut down on "extras" in 
> >> my writing to you.
> >>
> >> If you meant my comment on David's and Si Chen's discussion, like I 
> >> said, you better re-read for yourself. I'd rather not repeat something 
> >> so often it seems like I'm rubbing a fact in or something.
> >>
> >> If you're still miffed for some reason, I'll say sorry again. But I 
> >> think we both better watch out, and stop this somewhere sometime soon. 
> >> Or both of us will be accused of messing up!
> >>
> >> As I said, all posts are cached or read or otherwise recorded or 
> >> witnessed by others. We should both take a step back and re-read past 
> >> posts in order to avoid further misunderstanding.
> >>
> >> My actions are plain for all to see, and so are yours. We should both 
> >> behave ourselves. Agree? :)
> >>
> >> Jonathon
> >>
> >> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>> Jonathon,
> >>> are you trolling?
> >>> Jacopo
> >>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>> Er, Jacopo. Maybe I moved your cheese some time, I don't know. If 
> >>>> so, sorry!
> >>>>
> >>>> Since you like conciseness, please re-read this thread between David 
> >>>> and Si Chen.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for incorrect information, re-read my previous posts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathon
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>>> Si Chen,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wasn't "saying" anything.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think that this is the problem with many of your (and with those 
> >>>>> of some new guys that recently are around in these lists) posts, 
> >>>>> Jonathon: you say nothing with too many words, and this is 
> >>>>> confusing, especially for new users and, in the dev list, it is 
> >>>>> annoying because it's difficult to concentrate and discuss on the 
> >>>>> development of OFBiz.
> >>>>> There is no need to comment every post and in general silence is 
> >>>>> better than incorrect or partially correct information.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> > 
> 
-- 
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

Re: svn commit: r502824 -/ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/product/inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

Jacques,

that's a great comment! You've made me smile, thanks.

Jacopo

Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Just one word :
> 
> Please "-*DON ' T*_ use absolute pathes in your diff/patches but relative to root"
> 
> Jacques
> 

Re: svn commit: r502824 -/ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/product/inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Just one word :

Please "-*DON ' T*_ use absolute pathes in your diff/patches but relative to root"

Jacques

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Sykes" <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
To: <de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r502824 -/ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/product/inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml


> Please please guys, just drop this, 
> 
> I'm sure none of us who are having to delete all this nonsense really
> care.
> 
> - Andrew
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 06:56 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > Tim, Jacopo,
> > 
> > Well, since you put this in the open, I guess I might as well re-examine my previous posts.
> > 
> > In Jacopo's case, it all did start out with me appreciating his help. In one of my first posts, I 
> > made the mistake of recalling that it was Jacopo who corrected me on the "please use absolute path 
> > in your diff/patches". Jacques informed us it was actually him. Incidentally, you'll note that I 
> > always use myself and my own mistakes to illustrate "how things should be done". That particular 
> > post was in a thread where David was suggesting a pre-commit review or lamenting the lack thereof.
> > 
> > Anyway, you'll see the same styles everywhere. Any to-the-point criticisms are first directed at 
> > myself, sometimes even almost deviating from the truth in cases where I wasn't quite able to find 
> > an example that qualifies myself as a target for said criticisms. At times, I may even have 
> > stretched the truth about myself in order to "smooth things out", and could've been accused of 
> > hypocrisy. For eg, I do have the tendency to admit to wrongdoing to some extent in order to "let 
> > the dust settle". I wouldn't state the exact audience that witnessed this style (and the responses 
> > to it) on this ML, but I can tell you that you can consider my tact universally acknowledged (and 
> > in some cases even disapproved of, because the tact gave way to ill reason and bordered on letting 
> > dishonesty take the final note.) Yes, my boss or bosses (future/potential ones) are in that 
> > audience. Part of that audience also includes Singaporean companies deciding whether they want to 
> > go with OFBiz.
> > 
> > (And for the record, to be clearly honest for a change, things are not looking good at all. Yes, 
> > they're watching every message I type, so you should know I'm your biggest proponent here. Stuck 
> > in a difficult in-between place.)
> > 
> > Back to Jacopo's case. One of the first "good rubs" with Jacopo was with the Product Variant BOMs 
> > help from Jacopo. In fact, about the biggest reason my current boss is still with OFBiz is because 
> > of his work in Manufacturing module. As I mentioned in a post to David, we're watching Jacopo; I 
> > recommended him to cover for me in tech support once my project is done. After all, my boss is in 
> > manufacturing and Jacopo has done a lot there. Despite his recent display (we're still comparing 
> > with his past posts way back for a more holistic assessment), I still think he's the right candidate.
> > 
> > I'm not going to ask the ML (or anybody, for that matter) to admonish him for his behavior. He's 
> > done a lot for OFBiz, and I'd honestly say he should take his Manufacturing module away with him 
> > if we're to ask him to go away. I don't want him to go away. I don't want to be put in that 
> > difficult position, so that's why I wouldn't want David in that position either. Well there I go 
> > again, that same style. :) If Jacopo goes, OFBiz will not hold enough value for me and my bosses.
> > 
> > As for really rubbing some people the wrong way, I guess it has a lot to do with the fact that 
> > I've weaned myself (and my bosses and future bosses) from dependence on ML tech support (yes, it 
> > was officially deemed a non-support channel some weeks back). And possibly even more because I 
> > unwittingly "damaged" the business model for some people here. I honestly didn't know at first the 
> > technical references for OFBiz are only sold commercially. Upon realizing it, I had then consulted 
> > David privately to ask if there's anything I can do (eg NOT publish my altruistic 
> > yet-to-be-written Engineer's Manual) if it meant righting an imbalance in "give-and-take" 
> > situation between OFBiz and users. David said it's Undersun that's profiting from those 
> > commercially sold tech references, not OFBiz.
> > 
> > (I hope the dev list doesn't have paid customers, because some did complain about the tech 
> > references sold. I have never seen those references, and can't comment. Would've wanted this post 
> > to be private, but maybe I should really be perfectly honest for a change. Bosses would fry me if 
> > they bought those references owing to my comments or the lack thereof, so I have to say I'm 
> > neither arguing against nor for those references.)
> > 
> > Please understand that I had no option to avoid taking apart OFBiz and weaning my bosses from 
> > reliance on a "difficult channel" for tech support. It was about the only way I could keep them 
> > from chucking OFBiz in the trash. And maybe I should be honest (but I thought I'd mentioned this 
> > several times) about my occupation; I'm a LEGAL reverse-engineer by trade (not just Java 
> > compiled/source codes). If there's an implicit ban againt reverse-engineers in ML, please let me 
> > know and I'll gladly oblige. This isn't my grandfather's ML. (There, same style again.)
> > 
> > I will certainly take your suggestions seriously, and heed your call for us to "come 
> > [cooperate/play] together". However, I do hope the ML can appreciate that I'm caught in a 
> > difficult in-between position, and my comments on the ML cannot deviate too far from "honest 
> > business sense". I'd have thought my arguments for OFBiz are all the more potent precisely because 
> > of my stark objectivity. And that appears to be the case (for now), since my bosses haven't turned 
> > away from OFBiz yet.
> > 
> > I hope that this thread being on the dev list will mean it will stop here. I wouldn't want another 
> > "baggin on OFBiz" session (you know my stakes in OFBiz). If it does spark a rowdy discussion, I'll 
> > be the first to call for a stop to that.
> > 
> > One important note about the ML. I have noticed it's probably hard for some people to scan through 
> > surrounding contexts (posts related to a post) when responding to a post. Perhaps that's where the 
> > problem is?
> > 
> > I hope we understand each other more from this.
> > 
> > Jonathon
> > 
> > Tim Ruppert wrote:
> > > Jonathon as an innocent bystander, all I can say is that with every word 
> > > you type you are rubbing people the wrong way.  Please just take a 
> > > moment to read thru your posts before hitting send - and think about the 
> > > fact that there are tons of people here from different backgrounds who 
> > > are pushing towards the same goal.
> > > 
> > > I realize that your intentions are good and that you're working towards 
> > > that same goal, but understand that if you're rubbing everyone the wrong 
> > > way - it might not be them, but how you're choosing to phrase your 
> > > questions, comments and concerns.
> > > 
> > > All I ask is that you think about what you're saying and where you 
> > > really want things to go and phrase things accordingly.  I'm not saying 
> > > that all responses to your digging have been phrased smoothly - but you 
> > > can only control yourself - so let's all give it a try.
> > > 
> > > This is not totally relevant, but I believe I wrote this up sometime 
> > > around the last episode people rubbing others the wrong way on the dev 
> > > list 
> > > - http://www.nabble.com/Why's-everybody-baggin'-on-OFBiz-lately-t3081858.html
> > > 
> > > Anyways, I hope you read this for what it is - a request to come 
> > > together - and you take my suggestions seriously.  Thanks for posting 
> > > Jonathon and we look forward to more helpful things out of your in the 
> > > future.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Tim
> > > --
> > > Tim Ruppert
> > > HotWax Media
> > > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> > > 
> > > o:801.649.6594
> > > f:801.649.6595
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:27 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > > 
> > >> Jacopo,
> > >>
> > >> No, I'm not trolling. Are you?
> > >>
> > >> If you meant the last concise post to you, it's because I know you're 
> > >> really really busy. Just a sincere effort to cut down on "extras" in 
> > >> my writing to you.
> > >>
> > >> If you meant my comment on David's and Si Chen's discussion, like I 
> > >> said, you better re-read for yourself. I'd rather not repeat something 
> > >> so often it seems like I'm rubbing a fact in or something.
> > >>
> > >> If you're still miffed for some reason, I'll say sorry again. But I 
> > >> think we both better watch out, and stop this somewhere sometime soon. 
> > >> Or both of us will be accused of messing up!
> > >>
> > >> As I said, all posts are cached or read or otherwise recorded or 
> > >> witnessed by others. We should both take a step back and re-read past 
> > >> posts in order to avoid further misunderstanding.
> > >>
> > >> My actions are plain for all to see, and so are yours. We should both 
> > >> behave ourselves. Agree? :)
> > >>
> > >> Jonathon
> > >>
> > >> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> > >>> Jonathon,
> > >>> are you trolling?
> > >>> Jacopo
> > >>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > >>>> Er, Jacopo. Maybe I moved your cheese some time, I don't know. If 
> > >>>> so, sorry!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Since you like conciseness, please re-read this thread between David 
> > >>>> and Si Chen.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As for incorrect information, re-read my previous posts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jonathon
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> > >>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > >>>>>> Si Chen,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I wasn't "saying" anything.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think that this is the problem with many of your (and with those 
> > >>>>> of some new guys that recently are around in these lists) posts, 
> > >>>>> Jonathon: you say nothing with too many words, and this is 
> > >>>>> confusing, especially for new users and, in the dev list, it is 
> > >>>>> annoying because it's difficult to concentrate and discuss on the 
> > >>>>> development of OFBiz.
> > >>>>> There is no need to comment every post and in general silence is 
> > >>>>> better than incorrect or partially correct information.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Jacopo
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>
> > > 
> > 
> -- 
> Kind Regards
> Andrew Sykes <an...@sykesdevelopment.com>
> Sykes Development Ltd
> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com