You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> on 2009/12/09 11:14:20 UTC
Writing a review. was:Re: svn commit: r886743 [1/4] - in
/ofbiz/branches/addbirt: applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/
applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/actions/payment/
applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/payment/report/
applications/account...
Hi Scott,
Thank you for you lengthly reply. I agree we should do this better in
the future, I will do my best to improve. Please continue your reviews
which are certainly good for the project.
A suggestion I have for everybody who is reviewing the commits and
contributions and wants to make some suggestions for improvement please
realize that almost always lot of time is invested to create it. Also
some courage is required to face the direct and harsh complaints that
sometimes are written. This can often be a lot nicer.
When a commit or contribution is reviewed, do not start complaining
straight away there is a stupid mistake, but first give a general
opinion about the commit itself if it is a good idea and if it is
valuable. Nice words in the beginning will make the contributor listen
better to the following comments you have.
If a reviewer complains about certain aspects of the commit or
contribution also provide hints how it can be resolved.
Remember action is reaction, a harsh and direct review will almost
always get the same reaction of the contributor or it will be fully
ignored.
Regards,
Hans
P.S. Yes i also do not always act as i suggest above but I am working at
it.
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 00:01 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
> On 8/12/2009, at 10:16 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > If that was offending to you i apologize for that. I was under the
> > impression that the Eclipse license was allowed and you, you stated it
> > yourself, brought up license issues without being a license expert and
> > gave me the burden to solve it also being far from a license expert.
>
> A quick review from my perspective:
> - You were provided with a link to the ASF's licensing explanation
> page way back on the 11th Nov, that link provided a clear explanation
> of how the EPL should be treated. You did not attempt to clarify with
> the community the implications of the ASF guidelines.
> - Sometime around the 20th you again asked if it was okay to commit
> birt to the trunk and were again reminded of the licensing issues, I
> reviewed the code in full from a licensing point of view and pointed
> out the specific problems. You did not respond.
> - At the start of this month you again asked if it was okay to commit
> birt to the trunk and basically said that the licensing problems were
> not problems at all, even though you had made no attempt to clarify
> the licensing situation with the community.
> - A few days later you asked for my help in finding a way for the birt
> project to modify their license so that we could use their source
> code. I explained that I had no idea how to do that and recommended
> you contact the ASF legal mailing, at which point you seemed to get
> annoyed at me for my apparent unwillingness to help.
>
> I think much of this could have been avoided if you had made a greater
> effort to interact with the community during the earlier reviews and
> to understand the issues that were raised. As you mentioned below,
> all seems to be solved now and I am not trying to attack you by
> pointing these things out, I'm only pushing this issue because I would
> prefer it if things went more smoothly in the future.
>
> > For every new function I introduce there is a lot of opposition always
> > by the same people which sometimes gives me the feeling that simply
> > reasons are found to block my contributions.
>
> I want to make it quite clear to you and to everybody else that my
> opinions and comments are my own and no one else's. No one has ever
> attempted to influence the way I interact with the community and I can
> assure you that such an attempt would fail. I review OFBiz commits
> because I care about the project and for the most part I do it on my
> own time. Your contributions are as welcome to me as anyone else's,
> but just as with anyone else I will respond if I see problems or if
> they fail to follow best practices and I welcome this same treatment
> from the community to my own work (not because I think my work is
> infallible, I'm quite sure people could find problems with my commits
> and identifying those problems would help me improve my work). My
> reviews are not an attempt to attack your contributions and I do not
> sit here waiting for you to commit something so that I can pick it
> apart.
>
> > Perhaps the main problem
> > here is that i put business reasons much higher than technical reasons
> > and most people here are technical.
>
> IMO it is impossible to effectively solve business problems without
> respecting the technical foundation of those solutions, attempting to
> do so will result in a leaning tower. Anyway, differing opinions
> should be treated as an opportunity to find a better solution and not
> as a recipe for disaster.
>
> > All seems now be solved, and i appreciate you technical view and
> > comments on the system.
>
> And I do, honestly, appreciate you and your team's contributions.
>
> > Concerning my comment about relationships, had nothing to do with you,
> > just by the way way people in general treat each other here in the
> > mailing list, which is much different here in Thailand and has its
> > disadvantages too. Probably nothing is perfect in this world.
>
> Understood, thank you for clarifying and I apologize for my rash
> interpretation.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 21:46 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
> >> On 8/12/2009, at 4:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you Scott for the statement.
> >>>
> >>> For the record, all work on the Birt branch was done by Chattree, a
> >>> colleague of mine here at Antwebsystems. I just helped him a bit
> >>> because
> >>> the tough western (mailinglist) mentality is not really compatible
> >>> with
> >>> the Asian culture where relationships are the most important value.
> >>
> >> If you're implying that I've treated our relationship with less value
> >> than was appropriate then I take offense to that. I'd like to remind
> >> you that I spent some of my spare time reviewing your work instead of
> >> working on things that I am interested in and you proceeded to ignore
> >> my review even though you requested it. When you finally did
> >> acknowledge my comments you treated them as some sort of unfair
> >> burden
> >> that I was placing on you. I found your actions to be rude, very
> >> annoying and hardly indicative of your desire to have a good working
> >> relationship. So for you to sit here and attempt to take the high
> >> ground when you have been the agitator during these discussions is a
> >> little bit rich for my liking.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Hans
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 08:25 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
> >>>> Hi Ruppert
> >>>>
> >>>> Hans ended up removing the code which was of concern so the issues
> >>>> that I suggested he discuss with legal are no longer present.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Scott
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/12/2009, at 4:49 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Did all of this go to legal like was requested? If not, then
> >>>>> it's a
> >>>>> -1 to commit this to the trunk.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Ruppert
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Tim Ruppert
> >>>>> HotWax Media
> >>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> o:801.649.6594
> >>>>> f:801.649.6595
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Scott,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> had some time to look at it this weekend?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the
> >>>>>> trunk
> >>>>>> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
> >>>>>> .....
> >>>>>>>> Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your
> >>>>>>>> last
> >>>>>>>> concerns?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> whole thing on the weekend.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
> >>>
> >>
> > --
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
> >
>
--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
Re: Writing a review. was:Re: svn commit: r886743 [1/4] - in /ofbiz/branches/addbirt: applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/ applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/actions/payment/ applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/payment/report/ applications/account...
Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Hi Hans,
I understand where you're coming from and I will make an effort to be
more conscience of these points when writing reviews. One thing to
keep in mind though is that in some cases you may be mistaking brevity
with harshness, with the number of commits coming in these days
reviews can take up a fair bit of time and getting through them before
continuing with regular work can be challenging at best.
This same point applies even more to suggesting solutions, generally
it takes a lot more time to find a solution than it does to identify a
problem. While I'm sure any reviewer would suggest possible solutions
if it is quick and easy for them to do so, there should never be any
expectation on them to do so just because they identified the issue.
I would suggest that if a problem is significant and a solution cannot
be easily found then the commit should be reverted and the changes
placed in a jira issue for further discussion as people have time/
interest to do so. I sometimes worry that the community is too
dependent on the trunk as a development base and this creates a sense
of urgency to commit code that otherwise would not be considered
urgent or hasn't had time to evolve into a robust solution. It is
also easier for a committer to refine and refactor new features over
time in their own local branch without having to worry about
deprecation and migration issues.
Regards
Scott
On 9/12/2009, at 11:14 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Thank you for you lengthly reply. I agree we should do this better in
> the future, I will do my best to improve. Please continue your
> reviews
> which are certainly good for the project.
>
> A suggestion I have for everybody who is reviewing the commits and
> contributions and wants to make some suggestions for improvement
> please
> realize that almost always lot of time is invested to create it. Also
> some courage is required to face the direct and harsh complaints that
> sometimes are written. This can often be a lot nicer.
>
> When a commit or contribution is reviewed, do not start complaining
> straight away there is a stupid mistake, but first give a general
> opinion about the commit itself if it is a good idea and if it is
> valuable. Nice words in the beginning will make the contributor listen
> better to the following comments you have.
>
> If a reviewer complains about certain aspects of the commit or
> contribution also provide hints how it can be resolved.
>
> Remember action is reaction, a harsh and direct review will almost
> always get the same reaction of the contributor or it will be fully
> ignored.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> P.S. Yes i also do not always act as i suggest above but I am
> working at
> it.
>
>
> On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 00:01 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 8/12/2009, at 10:16 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Scott,
>>>
>>> If that was offending to you i apologize for that. I was under the
>>> impression that the Eclipse license was allowed and you, you
>>> stated it
>>> yourself, brought up license issues without being a license expert
>>> and
>>> gave me the burden to solve it also being far from a license expert.
>>
>> A quick review from my perspective:
>> - You were provided with a link to the ASF's licensing explanation
>> page way back on the 11th Nov, that link provided a clear explanation
>> of how the EPL should be treated. You did not attempt to clarify
>> with
>> the community the implications of the ASF guidelines.
>> - Sometime around the 20th you again asked if it was okay to commit
>> birt to the trunk and were again reminded of the licensing issues, I
>> reviewed the code in full from a licensing point of view and pointed
>> out the specific problems. You did not respond.
>> - At the start of this month you again asked if it was okay to commit
>> birt to the trunk and basically said that the licensing problems were
>> not problems at all, even though you had made no attempt to clarify
>> the licensing situation with the community.
>> - A few days later you asked for my help in finding a way for the
>> birt
>> project to modify their license so that we could use their source
>> code. I explained that I had no idea how to do that and recommended
>> you contact the ASF legal mailing, at which point you seemed to get
>> annoyed at me for my apparent unwillingness to help.
>>
>> I think much of this could have been avoided if you had made a
>> greater
>> effort to interact with the community during the earlier reviews and
>> to understand the issues that were raised. As you mentioned below,
>> all seems to be solved now and I am not trying to attack you by
>> pointing these things out, I'm only pushing this issue because I
>> would
>> prefer it if things went more smoothly in the future.
>>
>>> For every new function I introduce there is a lot of opposition
>>> always
>>> by the same people which sometimes gives me the feeling that simply
>>> reasons are found to block my contributions.
>>
>> I want to make it quite clear to you and to everybody else that my
>> opinions and comments are my own and no one else's. No one has ever
>> attempted to influence the way I interact with the community and I
>> can
>> assure you that such an attempt would fail. I review OFBiz commits
>> because I care about the project and for the most part I do it on my
>> own time. Your contributions are as welcome to me as anyone else's,
>> but just as with anyone else I will respond if I see problems or if
>> they fail to follow best practices and I welcome this same treatment
>> from the community to my own work (not because I think my work is
>> infallible, I'm quite sure people could find problems with my commits
>> and identifying those problems would help me improve my work). My
>> reviews are not an attempt to attack your contributions and I do not
>> sit here waiting for you to commit something so that I can pick it
>> apart.
>>
>>> Perhaps the main problem
>>> here is that i put business reasons much higher than technical
>>> reasons
>>> and most people here are technical.
>>
>> IMO it is impossible to effectively solve business problems without
>> respecting the technical foundation of those solutions, attempting to
>> do so will result in a leaning tower. Anyway, differing opinions
>> should be treated as an opportunity to find a better solution and not
>> as a recipe for disaster.
>>
>>> All seems now be solved, and i appreciate you technical view and
>>> comments on the system.
>>
>> And I do, honestly, appreciate you and your team's contributions.
>>
>>> Concerning my comment about relationships, had nothing to do with
>>> you,
>>> just by the way way people in general treat each other here in the
>>> mailing list, which is much different here in Thailand and has its
>>> disadvantages too. Probably nothing is perfect in this world.
>>
>> Understood, thank you for clarifying and I apologize for my rash
>> interpretation.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 21:46 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2009, at 4:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Scott for the statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the record, all work on the Birt branch was done by
>>>>> Chattree, a
>>>>> colleague of mine here at Antwebsystems. I just helped him a bit
>>>>> because
>>>>> the tough western (mailinglist) mentality is not really compatible
>>>>> with
>>>>> the Asian culture where relationships are the most important
>>>>> value.
>>>>
>>>> If you're implying that I've treated our relationship with less
>>>> value
>>>> than was appropriate then I take offense to that. I'd like to
>>>> remind
>>>> you that I spent some of my spare time reviewing your work
>>>> instead of
>>>> working on things that I am interested in and you proceeded to
>>>> ignore
>>>> my review even though you requested it. When you finally did
>>>> acknowledge my comments you treated them as some sort of unfair
>>>> burden
>>>> that I was placing on you. I found your actions to be rude, very
>>>> annoying and hardly indicative of your desire to have a good
>>>> working
>>>> relationship. So for you to sit here and attempt to take the high
>>>> ground when you have been the agitator during these discussions
>>>> is a
>>>> little bit rich for my liking.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 08:25 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Ruppert
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans ended up removing the code which was of concern so the
>>>>>> issues
>>>>>> that I suggested he discuss with legal are no longer present.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/12/2009, at 4:49 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did all of this go to legal like was requested? If not, then
>>>>>>> it's a
>>>>>>> -1 to commit this to the trunk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Ruppert
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Tim Ruppert
>>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> o:801.649.6594
>>>>>>> f:801.649.6595
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> had some time to look at it this weekend?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the
>>>>>>>> trunk
>>>>>>>> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>> .....
>>>>>>>>>> Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your
>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>> concerns?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> whole thing on the weekend.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>
>>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>
Re: Writing a review. was:Re: svn commit: r886743 [1/4] - in /ofbiz/branches/addbirt: applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/ applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/actions/payment/ applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/payment/re
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
This certainly can't hurt, yes!
Jacques
() ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org
From: "Hans Bakker" <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Thank you for you lengthly reply. I agree we should do this better in
> the future, I will do my best to improve. Please continue your reviews
> which are certainly good for the project.
>
> A suggestion I have for everybody who is reviewing the commits and
> contributions and wants to make some suggestions for improvement please
> realize that almost always lot of time is invested to create it. Also
> some courage is required to face the direct and harsh complaints that
> sometimes are written. This can often be a lot nicer.
>
> When a commit or contribution is reviewed, do not start complaining
> straight away there is a stupid mistake, but first give a general
> opinion about the commit itself if it is a good idea and if it is
> valuable. Nice words in the beginning will make the contributor listen
> better to the following comments you have.
>
> If a reviewer complains about certain aspects of the commit or
> contribution also provide hints how it can be resolved.
>
> Remember action is reaction, a harsh and direct review will almost
> always get the same reaction of the contributor or it will be fully
> ignored.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> P.S. Yes i also do not always act as i suggest above but I am working at
> it.
>
>
> On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 00:01 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 8/12/2009, at 10:16 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Scott,
>> >
>> > If that was offending to you i apologize for that. I was under the
>> > impression that the Eclipse license was allowed and you, you stated it
>> > yourself, brought up license issues without being a license expert and
>> > gave me the burden to solve it also being far from a license expert.
>>
>> A quick review from my perspective:
>> - You were provided with a link to the ASF's licensing explanation
>> page way back on the 11th Nov, that link provided a clear explanation
>> of how the EPL should be treated. You did not attempt to clarify with
>> the community the implications of the ASF guidelines.
>> - Sometime around the 20th you again asked if it was okay to commit
>> birt to the trunk and were again reminded of the licensing issues, I
>> reviewed the code in full from a licensing point of view and pointed
>> out the specific problems. You did not respond.
>> - At the start of this month you again asked if it was okay to commit
>> birt to the trunk and basically said that the licensing problems were
>> not problems at all, even though you had made no attempt to clarify
>> the licensing situation with the community.
>> - A few days later you asked for my help in finding a way for the birt
>> project to modify their license so that we could use their source
>> code. I explained that I had no idea how to do that and recommended
>> you contact the ASF legal mailing, at which point you seemed to get
>> annoyed at me for my apparent unwillingness to help.
>>
>> I think much of this could have been avoided if you had made a greater
>> effort to interact with the community during the earlier reviews and
>> to understand the issues that were raised. As you mentioned below,
>> all seems to be solved now and I am not trying to attack you by
>> pointing these things out, I'm only pushing this issue because I would
>> prefer it if things went more smoothly in the future.
>>
>> > For every new function I introduce there is a lot of opposition always
>> > by the same people which sometimes gives me the feeling that simply
>> > reasons are found to block my contributions.
>>
>> I want to make it quite clear to you and to everybody else that my
>> opinions and comments are my own and no one else's. No one has ever
>> attempted to influence the way I interact with the community and I can
>> assure you that such an attempt would fail. I review OFBiz commits
>> because I care about the project and for the most part I do it on my
>> own time. Your contributions are as welcome to me as anyone else's,
>> but just as with anyone else I will respond if I see problems or if
>> they fail to follow best practices and I welcome this same treatment
>> from the community to my own work (not because I think my work is
>> infallible, I'm quite sure people could find problems with my commits
>> and identifying those problems would help me improve my work). My
>> reviews are not an attempt to attack your contributions and I do not
>> sit here waiting for you to commit something so that I can pick it
>> apart.
>>
>> > Perhaps the main problem
>> > here is that i put business reasons much higher than technical reasons
>> > and most people here are technical.
>>
>> IMO it is impossible to effectively solve business problems without
>> respecting the technical foundation of those solutions, attempting to
>> do so will result in a leaning tower. Anyway, differing opinions
>> should be treated as an opportunity to find a better solution and not
>> as a recipe for disaster.
>>
>> > All seems now be solved, and i appreciate you technical view and
>> > comments on the system.
>>
>> And I do, honestly, appreciate you and your team's contributions.
>>
>> > Concerning my comment about relationships, had nothing to do with you,
>> > just by the way way people in general treat each other here in the
>> > mailing list, which is much different here in Thailand and has its
>> > disadvantages too. Probably nothing is perfect in this world.
>>
>> Understood, thank you for clarifying and I apologize for my rash
>> interpretation.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Hans
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 21:46 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>> >> On 8/12/2009, at 4:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Thank you Scott for the statement.
>> >>>
>> >>> For the record, all work on the Birt branch was done by Chattree, a
>> >>> colleague of mine here at Antwebsystems. I just helped him a bit
>> >>> because
>> >>> the tough western (mailinglist) mentality is not really compatible
>> >>> with
>> >>> the Asian culture where relationships are the most important value.
>> >>
>> >> If you're implying that I've treated our relationship with less value
>> >> than was appropriate then I take offense to that. I'd like to remind
>> >> you that I spent some of my spare time reviewing your work instead of
>> >> working on things that I am interested in and you proceeded to ignore
>> >> my review even though you requested it. When you finally did
>> >> acknowledge my comments you treated them as some sort of unfair
>> >> burden
>> >> that I was placing on you. I found your actions to be rude, very
>> >> annoying and hardly indicative of your desire to have a good working
>> >> relationship. So for you to sit here and attempt to take the high
>> >> ground when you have been the agitator during these discussions is a
>> >> little bit rich for my liking.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Scott
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Hans
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 08:25 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>> >>>> Hi Ruppert
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hans ended up removing the code which was of concern so the issues
>> >>>> that I suggested he discuss with legal are no longer present.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Regards
>> >>>> Scott
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 8/12/2009, at 4:49 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Did all of this go to legal like was requested? If not, then
>> >>>>> it's a
>> >>>>> -1 to commit this to the trunk.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>> Ruppert
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Tim Ruppert
>> >>>>> HotWax Media
>> >>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> o:801.649.6594
>> >>>>> f:801.649.6595
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi Scott,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> had some time to look at it this weekend?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the
>> >>>>>> trunk
>> >>>>>> this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>> Hans
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>> >>>>>> .....
>> >>>>>>>> Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your
>> >>>>>>>> last
>> >>>>>>>> concerns?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over
>> >>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>> whole thing on the weekend.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>> >>>
>> >>
>> > --
>> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>> >
>>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>