You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> on 2014/06/09 16:09:02 UTC
[VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
The release files can be downloaded from here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
(committers only) or from here:
http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
(everyone else)
and are:
* apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
* KEYS: text file with keys
* apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
* apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
Vote:
[ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
[ -1] do not release
This vote will be closed in 5 days.
For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
The following text is quoted from the above url:
"Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager."
Kind Regards,
Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Ashish Vijaywargiya <vi...@gmail.com>.
+1
--
Kind Regards,
Ashish Vijaywargiya
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04
> branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number:
> "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache
> OFBiz 12.04.02".
>
> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>
> (committers only) or from here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>
> (everyone else)
>
> and are:
>
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
> * KEYS: text file with keys
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>
> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions
> on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html
> ).
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
> [ -1] do not release
>
> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
> For more details about this process please read
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> The following text is quoted from the above url:
> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval
> -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and
> there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be
> vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone
> identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies
> with the individual serving as release manager."
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Tests done OK
MD5 OK
+1
Jacques
Le 09/06/2014 16:09, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>
> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>
> (committers only) or from here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>
> (everyone else)
>
> and are:
>
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
> * KEYS: text file with keys
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>
> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
> [ -1] do not release
>
> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
> For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> The following text is quoted from the above url:
> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager."
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
--
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Anahita Goljahani <an...@gmail.com>.
+1
Successfully tested both automated and manual tests.
Kind regards
Anahita
2014-06-09 16:09 GMT+02:00 Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com>:
> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04
> branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number:
> "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache
> OFBiz 12.04.02".
>
> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>
> (committers only) or from here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>
> (everyone else)
>
> and are:
>
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
> * KEYS: text file with keys
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>
> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions
> on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html
> ).
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
> [ -1] do not release
>
> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
> For more details about this process please read
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> The following text is quoted from the above url:
> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval
> -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and
> there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be
> vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone
> identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies
> with the individual serving as release manager."
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Medhat AbdelBadie <me...@gmail.com>.
+1
Regards,
Medhat
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04
> branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number:
> "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache
> OFBiz 12.04.02".
>
> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>
> (committers only) or from here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>
> (everyone else)
>
> and are:
>
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
> * KEYS: text file with keys
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>
> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions
> on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html
> ).
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
> [ -1] do not release
>
> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
> For more details about this process please read
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> The following text is quoted from the above url:
> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval
> -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and
> there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be
> vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone
> identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies
> with the individual serving as release manager."
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Anil K Patel <an...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Pierre,
I am here to learn and work with you.
I am interested to work with you and do what I can. Will you be fine if I am working as a committer and PMC member and Not as representative of PMC? I mean, What I say or do is Not by any means voice of PMC.
The way I understand my role, I am contributor to this project.
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
COO
Hotwax Media Inc
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 18, 2014, at 3:52 AM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anil,
>
> I know the document.
>
> Let's not try to play me or others for the fool. I will be the last one to
> decide how you and your peers should work in other to build/expand the
> community of this project and the quality of its products.
>
> So, why don't you come up with a charter for your peers and yourself, put
> it on the website so that everybody can take notice of it and act
> accordingly. If you feel that would be beneficial to the project.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Anil,
I know the document.
Let's not try to play me or others for the fool. I will be the last one to
decide how you and your peers should work in other to build/expand the
community of this project and the quality of its products.
So, why don't you come up with a charter for your peers and yourself, put
it on the website so that everybody can take notice of it and act
accordingly. If you feel that would be beneficial to the project.
Regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Anil Patel <an...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Pierre,
I want to help.
Lets first get on same page for role of PMC, Below is the link to document that helps us all understand our role in project.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
I will spend sometime to understand Ron’s recommendations and figure out what I can do to help.
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
COO
Hotwax Media Inc
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors
On Jun 17, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anil,
>
> In stead of turning this around, maybe you should express what the
> responsibility of the PMC is. So that newcomers like Ron can get a feel of
> what to expect.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Thanks for this contribution Taher :)
Jacques
Le 17/06/2014 16:36, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
> Hi Everyone,
>
> You know I have been reading this discussion for a while brewing about how
> the PMC is not taking the most favorable decisions in managing the code
> base.
>
> The way I personally learned ofbiz was 100% on my own, heck i did not even
> write any questions in the mailing list. I read the books, went through the
> wiki, did hundreds of searches, reverse engineered the code and got much
> much better at the framework because of that and I think this framework was
> designed from the beginning for developers, not end users.
>
> OFBiz is limited in resources, this was very obvious from the beginning and
> I personally say thank you profusely to all the people keeping it alive and
> running.
>
> I think the community (myself included) should contribute more to the
> project in terms of JIRAs and their patches, test code, translate, push
> ideas forward, document, etc ... before being critical of the PMC. From the
> little work I did I remember the committers were helpful and quick to push
> my patches.
>
> just my 2 cents
>
> Taher Alkhateeb
> On Jun 17, 2014 4:58 PM, "Pierre Smits" <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Anil,
>>
>> In stead of turning this around, maybe you should express what the
>> responsibility of the PMC is. So that newcomers like Ron can get a feel of
>> what to expect.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>> Services and Retail & Trade
>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>
--
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Taher Alkhateeb <sl...@gmail.com>.
Hi Everyone,
You know I have been reading this discussion for a while brewing about how
the PMC is not taking the most favorable decisions in managing the code
base.
The way I personally learned ofbiz was 100% on my own, heck i did not even
write any questions in the mailing list. I read the books, went through the
wiki, did hundreds of searches, reverse engineered the code and got much
much better at the framework because of that and I think this framework was
designed from the beginning for developers, not end users.
OFBiz is limited in resources, this was very obvious from the beginning and
I personally say thank you profusely to all the people keeping it alive and
running.
I think the community (myself included) should contribute more to the
project in terms of JIRAs and their patches, test code, translate, push
ideas forward, document, etc ... before being critical of the PMC. From the
little work I did I remember the committers were helpful and quick to push
my patches.
just my 2 cents
Taher Alkhateeb
On Jun 17, 2014 4:58 PM, "Pierre Smits" <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anil,
>
> In stead of turning this around, maybe you should express what the
> responsibility of the PMC is. So that newcomers like Ron can get a feel of
> what to expect.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Anil,
In stead of turning this around, maybe you should express what the
responsibility of the PMC is. So that newcomers like Ron can get a feel of
what to expect.
Regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/High+Level+End-to-End+Processes
shows 1 Use Case as being documented
http://www.higherpass.com/apache/Tutorials/Configuring-Ofbiz-To-Use-A-Mysql-Database/
is a nice description of using MySQL that could be incorporated into the
docs as an example of the process described in the text.
It shows the actual XML which is reassuring.
<quote>
- What pieces of the on-line documentation are the responsibility of
Apache? Core accounting - A/P, A/R, G/L? Other common functions?
Seems that you are focused on accounting ;)
</quote>
These are areas where one would not expect a lot of customization since
the processes are standard for most of the world.
There may be other areas where many people use OOB code and screens.
I was only suggesting a starting point, not a scope.
<quote>
- What is the impact of a release that changes a use case?
Very ambitious...
</quote>
I disagree.
The person proposing to change the use case has to describe the change
when submitting the patch/enhancement to the review process.
This could replace some of the verbage and screenshots that should be
part of the review.
"Currently the system does X,Y and Z to process transaction type A. In
step Y there is a problem with M. My enhancement modify the process so
that the system does X, Y, and Y1 if this condition is met before moving
to Z." The new process can become the brief use case for Transaction
Type A with a little additional introductory text.
It also could be incorporated into a patch to the user manual without a
huge effort.
Since there is currently only 1 use case for the whole system, it might
encourage additional use cases to be developed even if they are not as
extensive as the existing one.
I worry that the existing use case is perhaps too detailed to act as a
model.
I do understand that there has to be a balance between value and TCO.
Ron
On 20/06/2014 5:48 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
> Le 17/06/2014 14:24, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>> At least a policy and roadmap about how the OfBiz project will go
>> from where it is now to where the PMC thinks that it should be.
>>
>> - What is the overall strategy for documentation - intended wiki
>> scope, on-line help, framework docs, end-user docs, use cases
>
> The "problem" (and also the reason OFBiz exists) is we are a free
> community, so with sparse human resources .
> So each time we try to plan something we don't enough interest or
> human resources to achieve it and then it's obsolete
> Also I must say devs prefer to develops than documenting... since it's
> on their free time... I guess you get it...
> When we get enough time we do some efforts and there are some good
> examples around
>
>>
>> - What parts of the wiki are known to be wrong? List of known defects
>> should be added to the JIRA.
>
> This is where things get tricky, reorganising the open wiki take time
> and long enough to embrace all the documentation.
> We rarely have this luxury :/
>
>>
>> - What is the policy and priority for documenting use cases? Only 1
>> documented at the moment.
>
> Which one? :D
>
>> What is the impact of a release that changes a use case?
>
> Very ambitious...
>
>> Can software be released if the use case documentation is made
>> incorrect by the change?
>
> I think Jacopo already replied
>
>>
>> - What parallel documentation is available that could be used with
>> the authors' permissions to fill in gaps?
>
> This another part where we would need help, but as soon as people are
> able to manage by themselves, they forget it, will you do the same?
>
>> The MySQL configuration article that I found would be a great
>> addition to the installation docs.
>
> Ref please?
>
>>
>> - What pieces of the on-line documentation are the responsibility of
>> Apache? Core accounting - A/P, A/R, G/L? Other common functions?
>
> Seems that you are focused on accounting ;)
>
>> What parts are deemed to be so implementation specific that they
>> must be provided by the person implementing the system for a client?
>
> Even in this case we can refer to them if they are of good quality.
> This is for instance what I did for the subscriptions and a good
> article from Sumit Porwal at Amicontech
>
>> What scaffolding should be provided to simplify the implementation
>> where the on-line docs are installation specific.
>>
>
> It would be interesting to see what the OFBiz addons manager do
>
>> A public statement by the PMC pf its documentation policy would help
>> new adopters to understand the situation.
>
> This could be discussed here indeed
>
>> It would also provide a focus for people who can help with docs or
>> provide chunks of documentation that they have in other places
>> (books, customer installations, internal corporate docs).
>>
>> It may be that some of the main players are making revenue from
>> providing documentation and training that is predicated on the poor
>> state of the current documentation and this may have to be a factor
>> in the discussion.
>> Can ways be found to reward contributors who are adding their IP to
>> the pool?
>
> I don't think so. I long ago propose the reverse bounty idea, it did
> not happen http://markmail.org/message/meyd2cccngk4yqxm Maybe I did
> not push enough see http://markmail.org/message/hiwkf6gxocydfrqg
>
> Jacques
>
>> Extracts from books link to the books? Links to companies that
>> provide customization of on-line docs in return for scaffolding?
>>
>> There may be more things that the PMC discovers once it decides to
>> take some action on documentation but I think that these would be
>> good starting points for the discussion.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 17/06/2014 5:41 AM, Anil Patel wrote:
>>> Pierre,
>>> Please elaborate, may be I can help.
>>>
>>> Are you saying PMC should set guidelines for documentation that
>>> should be delivered with each new feature or bug fix?
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards
>>> Anil Patel
>>> COO
>>> Hotwax Media Inc
>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
>>> ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
>>> http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors
>>>
>>> On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adrian,
>>>>
>>>> My apologies, but I must have missed your answer to the question
>>>> stated below.
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level
>>>> of documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on
>>>> which the PMC agrees?
>>>>
>>>> Regard,
>>>>
>>>> Pierre
>>>>
>>>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
>>>>
>>>>> Op 16 jun. 2014 om 23:11 heeft Adrian Crum
>>>>> <ad...@sandglass-software.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>> I answered the questions. Why don't you take some time and
>>>>> actually read my replies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 1:20 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying
>>>>>> to answer
>>>>>> the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the
>>>>>> product....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum <
>>>>>> adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the
>>>>>>> project, or are
>>>>>>> you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to
>>>>>>> your standards?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>>>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write
>>>>>>>> code that
>>>>>>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just
>>>>>>>> because they
>>>>>>>> are not paid?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good
>>>>>>>> documentation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned
>>>>>>>>> by using
>>>>>>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>>>>>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are
>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and
>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that
>>>>>>>> someone else
>>>>>>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>>>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write
>>>>>>>>>> down what
>>>>>>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>>>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even
>>>>>>>>>> include a
>>>>>>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently
>>>>>>>>>> existing to be
>>>>>>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard
>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any
>>>>>>>>>>> documentation that
>>>>>>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the
>>>>>>>>>>> trunk,
>>>>>>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>> on-line
>>>>>>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered
>>>>>>>>>>>> "tested" (try to
>>>>>>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production
>>>>>>>>>>>> database and
>>>>>>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual
>>>>>>>>>>>> tests" unless
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> do anything
>>>>>>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get
>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made
>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the
>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are
>>>>>>>>>>>> worked on in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target
>>>>>>>>>>>> level of
>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues on which
>>>>>>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will supersede
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the 12.04
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affirmatively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancel the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Le 17/06/2014 14:24, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
> My 2 cents.
>
> At least a policy and roadmap about how the OfBiz project will go from where it is now to where the PMC thinks that it should be.
>
> - What is the overall strategy for documentation - intended wiki scope, on-line help, framework docs, end-user docs, use cases
The "problem" (and also the reason OFBiz exists) is we are a free community, so with sparse human resources .
So each time we try to plan something we don't enough interest or human resources to achieve it and then it's obsolete
Also I must say devs prefer to develops than documenting... since it's on their free time... I guess you get it...
When we get enough time we do some efforts and there are some good examples around
>
> - What parts of the wiki are known to be wrong? List of known defects should be added to the JIRA.
This is where things get tricky, reorganising the open wiki take time and long enough to embrace all the documentation.
We rarely have this luxury :/
>
> - What is the policy and priority for documenting use cases? Only 1 documented at the moment.
Which one? :D
> What is the impact of a release that changes a use case?
Very ambitious...
> Can software be released if the use case documentation is made incorrect by the change?
I think Jacopo already replied
>
> - What parallel documentation is available that could be used with the authors' permissions to fill in gaps?
This another part where we would need help, but as soon as people are able to manage by themselves, they forget it, will you do the same?
> The MySQL configuration article that I found would be a great addition to the installation docs.
Ref please?
>
> - What pieces of the on-line documentation are the responsibility of Apache? Core accounting - A/P, A/R, G/L? Other common functions?
Seems that you are focused on accounting ;)
> What parts are deemed to be so implementation specific that they must be provided by the person implementing the system for a client?
Even in this case we can refer to them if they are of good quality.
This is for instance what I did for the subscriptions and a good article from Sumit Porwal at Amicontech
> What scaffolding should be provided to simplify the implementation where the on-line docs are installation specific.
>
It would be interesting to see what the OFBiz addons manager do
> A public statement by the PMC pf its documentation policy would help new adopters to understand the situation.
This could be discussed here indeed
> It would also provide a focus for people who can help with docs or provide chunks of documentation that they have in other places (books, customer
> installations, internal corporate docs).
>
> It may be that some of the main players are making revenue from providing documentation and training that is predicated on the poor state of the
> current documentation and this may have to be a factor in the discussion.
> Can ways be found to reward contributors who are adding their IP to the pool?
I don't think so. I long ago propose the reverse bounty idea, it did not happen http://markmail.org/message/meyd2cccngk4yqxm Maybe I did not push
enough see http://markmail.org/message/hiwkf6gxocydfrqg
Jacques
> Extracts from books link to the books? Links to companies that provide customization of on-line docs in return for scaffolding?
>
> There may be more things that the PMC discovers once it decides to take some action on documentation but I think that these would be good starting
> points for the discussion.
>
> Ron
>
> On 17/06/2014 5:41 AM, Anil Patel wrote:
>> Pierre,
>> Please elaborate, may be I can help.
>>
>> Are you saying PMC should set guidelines for documentation that should be delivered with each new feature or bug fix?
>>
>> Thanks and Regards
>> Anil Patel
>> COO
>> Hotwax Media Inc
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
>> ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
>> http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors
>>
>> On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Adrian,
>>>
>>> My apologies, but I must have missed your answer to the question stated below.
>>>
>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which the PMC
>>> agrees?
>>>
>>> Regard,
>>>
>>> Pierre
>>>
>>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
>>>
>>>> Op 16 jun. 2014 om 23:11 heeft Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>> I answered the questions. Why don't you take some time and actually read my replies?
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/16/2014 1:20 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying to answer
>>>>> the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members can
>>>>> indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the
>>>>> product....
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>
>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum <
>>>>> adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are
>>>>>> you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>>>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>>>>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>>>>>>> are not paid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>>>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>>>>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>>>>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>>>>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>>>>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>>>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>>>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>>>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>>>>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>>>>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>>>>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>>>>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>>>>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>
>
>
--
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
My 2 cents.
At least a policy and roadmap about how the OfBiz project will go from
where it is now to where the PMC thinks that it should be.
- What is the overall strategy for documentation - intended wiki scope,
on-line help, framework docs, end-user docs, use cases
- What parts of the wiki are known to be wrong? List of known defects
should be added to the JIRA.
- What is the policy and priority for documenting use cases? Only 1
documented at the moment.
What is the impact of a release that changes a use case?
Can software be released if the use case documentation is made
incorrect by the change?
- What parallel documentation is available that could be used with the
authors' permissions to fill in gaps?
The MySQL configuration article that I found would be a great addition
to the installation docs.
- What pieces of the on-line documentation are the responsibility of
Apache? Core accounting - A/P, A/R, G/L? Other common functions?
What parts are deemed to be so implementation specific that they must
be provided by the person implementing the system for a client?
What scaffolding should be provided to simplify the implementation
where the on-line docs are installation specific.
A public statement by the PMC pf its documentation policy would help new
adopters to understand the situation.
It would also provide a focus for people who can help with docs or
provide chunks of documentation that they have in other places (books,
customer installations, internal corporate docs).
It may be that some of the main players are making revenue from
providing documentation and training that is predicated on the poor
state of the current documentation and this may have to be a factor in
the discussion.
Can ways be found to reward contributors who are adding their IP to the
pool?
Extracts from books link to the books? Links to companies that provide
customization of on-line docs in return for scaffolding?
There may be more things that the PMC discovers once it decides to take
some action on documentation but I think that these would be good
starting points for the discussion.
Ron
On 17/06/2014 5:41 AM, Anil Patel wrote:
> Pierre,
> Please elaborate, may be I can help.
>
> Are you saying PMC should set guidelines for documentation that should be delivered with each new feature or bug fix?
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Anil Patel
> COO
> Hotwax Media Inc
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
> ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
> http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors
>
> On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Adrian,
>>
>> My apologies, but I must have missed your answer to the question stated below.
>>
>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which the PMC agrees?
>>
>> Regard,
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
>>
>>> Op 16 jun. 2014 om 23:11 heeft Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>> I answered the questions. Why don't you take some time and actually read my replies?
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum
>>> Sandglass Software
>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2014 1:20 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>> Adrian,
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying to answer
>>>> the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members can
>>>> indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the
>>>> product....
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>
>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum <
>>>> adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are
>>>>> you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>>>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>>>>>> are not paid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>>>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>>>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>>>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>>>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>>>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>>>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>>>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>>>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>>>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Anil Patel <an...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Pierre,
Please elaborate, may be I can help.
Are you saying PMC should set guidelines for documentation that should be delivered with each new feature or bug fix?
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
COO
Hotwax Media Inc
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors
On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> My apologies, but I must have missed your answer to the question stated below.
>
> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which the PMC agrees?
>
> Regard,
>
> Pierre
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
>
>> Op 16 jun. 2014 om 23:11 heeft Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> I answered the questions. Why don't you take some time and actually read my replies?
>>
>> Adrian Crum
>> Sandglass Software
>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>
>>> On 6/16/2014 1:20 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>> Adrian,
>>>
>>> Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying to answer
>>> the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members can
>>> indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the
>>> product....
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Pierre Smits
>>>
>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum <
>>> adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are
>>>> you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>>>>> are not paid?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Adrian,
My apologies, but I must have missed your answer to the question stated below.
Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which the PMC agrees?
Regard,
Pierre
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
> Op 16 jun. 2014 om 23:11 heeft Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
> I answered the questions. Why don't you take some time and actually read my replies?
>
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>
>> On 6/16/2014 1:20 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>> Adrian,
>>
>> Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying to answer
>> the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members can
>> indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the
>> product....
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>> Services and Retail & Trade
>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum <
>> adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are
>>> you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards?
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum
>>> Sandglass Software
>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>
>>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>>>> are not paid?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
I answered the questions. Why don't you take some time and actually read
my replies?
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 6/16/2014 1:20 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying to answer
> the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members can
> indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the
> product....
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum <
> adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are
>> you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards?
>>
>>
>> Adrian Crum
>> Sandglass Software
>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>
>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>>> are not paid?
>>>
>>>
>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum
>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Adrian,
Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying to answer
the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members can
indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the
product....
Regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum <
adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are
> you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards?
>
>
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>
> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>
>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>
>>
>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>> are not paid?
>>
>>
>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>
>>
>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>
>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> Adrian Crum
>>> Sandglass Software
>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>
>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>
>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Le 22/06/2014 04:12, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
> On 21/06/2014 3:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>> Le 21/06/2014 17:41, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>>> I understand the costs of open source but most are in a bit better shape.
>>> We use around 50 OSS packages in our own software.
>>
>> I guess most other projects have not the scope of an ERP. This is one of the problem with OFBiz documentation: where should it stop.
>> On the other hand I agree that documentations like setups and such need to up to date an as clear as possible.
>>
> This is where the PMC needs to settle on a scope for the docs.
>>>
>>> This also makes me look at documentation very critically since I understand how the cost of using OSS depends to a great degree on the documentation.
>>>
>>> It appears that there is a lot of documentation for OfBiz but it is in a lot of places and a lot has not been update as things change.
>>
>> It's impossible to centralize others efforts...
> I would think that it is worthwhile to reach out to those who are writing external docs to find out why they are not contributing it.
> Do they want more recognition or want to drive traffic to their sites? Is there something that could be done to recognize contributions?
First we would need to be aware of them...
>
> Do they feel that adding it to the OfBiz site would be presumptuous without "permission? Perhaps they just need to be invited..
Read the top of the OFBiz (open) wiki about that
>
>> It's even difficult to be sure about our own documentation. I tend to think now that we should rather remove all what is wrong, or even deprecated,
>> rather than trying to barely keep those alive.
>>
> I agree.
> There has to be an appreciation of TCO for the project before a new document is started.
>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I ran into problems in the very first step where the installation docs were both wrong and outdated in ways that made me question
>>> the project management of the project. This has an impact on the long-term cost of going with OfBiz.
>>
>> Yes, that should ever be reported like you did. In order for us to keep thing cleans, thanks for your effort!
>>
> I would recommend using JIRA issues be created to at least build a list of defects, if the person reporting them can't fix them.
> However, there is no reason not to make corrections of things if you know the answer.
You must have access to the wiki
Jacques
>
>>>
>>> I appreciate that this is a volunteer organization and that project management is not easy in this environment but that just makes it harder not
>>> optional.
>>> I also appreciate that the development team includes important contributors for whom, English is not their first language.
>>> It is easy for me to fix the problems that this causes, if the facts are correct and written down in some form.
>>> It is easy to reword a paragraph but almost impossible to make up content that does not exist.
>>>
>>> Je puis lire et parler français et écrire avec difficulté.
>>
>> Je confirme, en effet !
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>> However, Google translate is still one of my best friends!
>>> It also helps clean up English.
>>> It is sometimes helpful to run an English paragraph through Google to see if it is sufficiently clear for Google to translate correctly.
>>> Often a simple restructuring of the English to fix Google's French translation makes the paragraph much easier to read.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> On 20/06/2014 4:23 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Le 16/06/2014 22:54, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>>>>> A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no
>>>>> comments or questions about documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was ready for use.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
>>>>> Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of simple processes has been done correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.
>>>>>
>>>>> The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on eCommerce.
>>>>
>>>> I think the community is more diverse but "web companies focused on eCommerce" are more vocal indeed.
>>>>
>>>>> Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of OfBiz.
>>>>
>>>> Few, not many, you can refer to the top of this page https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties, AR
>>>>> and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.
>>>>> It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
>>>>> I do not need more overhead.
>>>>
>>>> There is a price to pay to be free http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien (I guess you know how to use Google translate)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using it
>>>>> who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will never get to be a polished product.
>>>>
>>>> I think Adrian already well explained this point. To add something: I'm currently working on a project where OFBiz is only seen as a services
>>>> engine, most people using OFBiz don't care about its UI, because of what Adrian explained.
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software
>>>>> development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could help improve some of our processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team
>>>>> members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably just more ranting!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your
>>>>>> standards?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>>>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>>>>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>>>>>>> are not paid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>>>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>>>>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>>>>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>>>>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>>>>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>>>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>>>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>>>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>>>>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>>>>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>>>>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>>>>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>>>>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
On 21/06/2014 3:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
> Le 21/06/2014 17:41, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>> I understand the costs of open source but most are in a bit better
>> shape.
>> We use around 50 OSS packages in our own software.
>
> I guess most other projects have not the scope of an ERP. This is one
> of the problem with OFBiz documentation: where should it stop.
> On the other hand I agree that documentations like setups and such
> need to up to date an as clear as possible.
>
This is where the PMC needs to settle on a scope for the docs.
>>
>> This also makes me look at documentation very critically since I
>> understand how the cost of using OSS depends to a great degree on the
>> documentation.
>>
>> It appears that there is a lot of documentation for OfBiz but it is
>> in a lot of places and a lot has not been update as things change.
>
> It's impossible to centralize others efforts...
I would think that it is worthwhile to reach out to those who are
writing external docs to find out why they are not contributing it.
Do they want more recognition or want to drive traffic to their sites?
Is there something that could be done to recognize contributions?
Do they feel that adding it to the OfBiz site would be presumptuous
without "permission? Perhaps they just need to be invited..
> It's even difficult to be sure about our own documentation. I tend to
> think now that we should rather remove all what is wrong, or even
> deprecated, rather than trying to barely keep those alive.
>
I agree.
There has to be an appreciation of TCO for the project before a new
document is started.
>>
>> Unfortunately I ran into problems in the very first step where the
>> installation docs were both wrong and outdated in ways that made me
>> question the project management of the project. This has an impact
>> on the long-term cost of going with OfBiz.
>
> Yes, that should ever be reported like you did. In order for us to
> keep thing cleans, thanks for your effort!
>
I would recommend using JIRA issues be created to at least build a list
of defects, if the person reporting them can't fix them.
However, there is no reason not to make corrections of things if you
know the answer.
>>
>> I appreciate that this is a volunteer organization and that project
>> management is not easy in this environment but that just makes it
>> harder not optional.
>> I also appreciate that the development team includes important
>> contributors for whom, English is not their first language.
>> It is easy for me to fix the problems that this causes, if the facts
>> are correct and written down in some form.
>> It is easy to reword a paragraph but almost impossible to make up
>> content that does not exist.
>>
>> Je puis lire et parler français et écrire avec difficulté.
>
> Je confirme, en effet !
>
> Jacques
>
>> However, Google translate is still one of my best friends!
>> It also helps clean up English.
>> It is sometimes helpful to run an English paragraph through Google to
>> see if it is sufficiently clear for Google to translate correctly.
>> Often a simple restructuring of the English to fix Google's French
>> translation makes the paragraph much easier to read.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 20/06/2014 4:23 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 16/06/2014 22:54, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>>>> A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier
>>>> exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with
>>>> no comments or questions about documentation.
>>>>
>>>> I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that
>>>> was ready for use.
>>>>
>>>> I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.
>>>>
>>>> The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the
>>>> end-to-end processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
>>>> Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation
>>>> of simple processes has been done correctly.
>>>>
>>>> I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need
>>>> but am starting to look at other alternatives since I have not
>>>> found what I need.
>>>>
>>>> The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on
>>>> eCommerce.
>>>
>>> I think the community is more diverse but "web companies focused on
>>> eCommerce" are more vocal indeed.
>>>
>>>> Many seem to be selling customization services or customized
>>>> versions of OfBiz.
>>>
>>> Few, not many, you can refer to the top of this page
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an
>>>> accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the
>>>> parties, AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and
>>>> delivery tracking.
>>>> It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in
>>>> explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting
>>>> to work.
>>>> I do not need more overhead.
>>>
>>> There is a price to pay to be free
>>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien (I guess you know
>>> how to use Google translate)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing
>>>> to invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations
>>>> using it who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried
>>>> that it will never get to be a polished product.
>>>
>>> I think Adrian already well explained this point. To add something:
>>> I'm currently working on a project where OFBiz is only seen as a
>>> services engine, most people using OFBiz don't care about its UI,
>>> because of what Adrian explained.
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I
>>>> had to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as
>>>> software development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that
>>>> I think could help improve some of our processes.
>>>>
>>>> As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if
>>>> we do go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that
>>>> other team members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to
>>>> share.
>>>>
>>>> Probably just more ranting!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>> On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project,
>>>>> or are you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up
>>>>> to your standards?
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just
>>>>>> because they
>>>>>> are not paid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good
>>>>>> documentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by
>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>>>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are
>>>>>> going to
>>>>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>>>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone
>>>>>> else
>>>>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write
>>>>>>>> down what
>>>>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even
>>>>>>>> include a
>>>>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any
>>>>>>>>> documentation that
>>>>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the
>>>>>>>>> trunk,
>>>>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of
>>>>>>>>>> on-line
>>>>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested"
>>>>>>>>>> (try to
>>>>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production
>>>>>>>>>> database and
>>>>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests"
>>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do
>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made
>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the
>>>>>>>>>> documentation
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are
>>>>>>>>>> worked on in a
>>>>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target
>>>>>>>>>> level of
>>>>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues
>>>>>>>>>> on which
>>>>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release
>>>>>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will
>>>>>>>>>>>> supersede
>>>>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the 12.04
>>>>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5,
>>>>>>>>>>>> apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use
>>>>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote
>>>>>>>>>>>> affirmatively
>>>>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative
>>>>>>>>>>>> votes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will
>>>>>>>>>>>> cancel the
>>>>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in
>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as
>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Le 21/06/2014 17:41, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
> I understand the costs of open source but most are in a bit better shape.
> We use around 50 OSS packages in our own software.
I guess most other projects have not the scope of an ERP. This is one of the problem with OFBiz documentation: where should it stop.
On the other hand I agree that documentations like setups and such need to up to date an as clear as possible.
>
> This also makes me look at documentation very critically since I understand how the cost of using OSS depends to a great degree on the documentation.
>
> It appears that there is a lot of documentation for OfBiz but it is in a lot of places and a lot has not been update as things change.
It's impossible to centralize others efforts... It's even difficult to be sure about our own documentation. I tend to think now that we should rather
remove all what is wrong, or even deprecated, rather than trying to barely keep those alive.
>
> Unfortunately I ran into problems in the very first step where the installation docs were both wrong and outdated in ways that made me question the
> project management of the project. This has an impact on the long-term cost of going with OfBiz.
Yes, that should ever be reported like you did. In order for us to keep thing cleans, thanks for your effort!
>
> I appreciate that this is a volunteer organization and that project management is not easy in this environment but that just makes it harder not
> optional.
> I also appreciate that the development team includes important contributors for whom, English is not their first language.
> It is easy for me to fix the problems that this causes, if the facts are correct and written down in some form.
> It is easy to reword a paragraph but almost impossible to make up content that does not exist.
>
> Je puis lire et parler français et écrire avec difficulté.
Je confirme, en effet !
Jacques
> However, Google translate is still one of my best friends!
> It also helps clean up English.
> It is sometimes helpful to run an English paragraph through Google to see if it is sufficiently clear for Google to translate correctly.
> Often a simple restructuring of the English to fix Google's French translation makes the paragraph much easier to read.
>
> Ron
>
> On 20/06/2014 4:23 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>> Le 16/06/2014 22:54, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>>> A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no comments
>>> or questions about documentation.
>>>
>>> I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was ready for use.
>>>
>>> I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.
>>>
>>> The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
>>> Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of simple processes has been done correctly.
>>>
>>> I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.
>>>
>>> The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on eCommerce.
>>
>> I think the community is more diverse but "web companies focused on eCommerce" are more vocal indeed.
>>
>>> Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of OfBiz.
>>
>> Few, not many, you can refer to the top of this page https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List
>>
>>
>>> I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties, AR and
>>> AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.
>>> It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
>>> I do not need more overhead.
>>
>> There is a price to pay to be free http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien (I guess you know how to use Google translate)
>>
>>>
>>> If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using it who
>>> are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will never get to be a polished product.
>>
>> I think Adrian already well explained this point. To add something: I'm currently working on a project where OFBiz is only seen as a services
>> engine, most people using OFBiz don't care about its UI, because of what Adrian explained.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>>
>>> I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software
>>> development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could help improve some of our processes.
>>>
>>> As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team
>>> members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.
>>>
>>> Probably just more ranting!
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your
>>>> standards?
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>>>>> are not paid?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>
--
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
I understand the costs of open source but most are in a bit better shape.
We use around 50 OSS packages in our own software.
This also makes me look at documentation very critically since I
understand how the cost of using OSS depends to a great degree on the
documentation.
It appears that there is a lot of documentation for OfBiz but it is in a
lot of places and a lot has not been update as things change.
Unfortunately I ran into problems in the very first step where the
installation docs were both wrong and outdated in ways that made me
question the project management of the project. This has an impact on
the long-term cost of going with OfBiz.
I appreciate that this is a volunteer organization and that project
management is not easy in this environment but that just makes it harder
not optional.
I also appreciate that the development team includes important
contributors for whom, English is not their first language.
It is easy for me to fix the problems that this causes, if the facts are
correct and written down in some form.
It is easy to reword a paragraph but almost impossible to make up
content that does not exist.
Je puis lire et parler français et écrire avec difficulté.
However, Google translate is still one of my best friends!
It also helps clean up English.
It is sometimes helpful to run an English paragraph through Google to
see if it is sufficiently clear for Google to translate correctly.
Often a simple restructuring of the English to fix Google's French
translation makes the paragraph much easier to read.
Ron
On 20/06/2014 4:23 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
> Le 16/06/2014 22:54, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>> A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier
>> exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no
>> comments or questions about documentation.
>>
>> I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was
>> ready for use.
>>
>> I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.
>>
>> The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end
>> processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
>> Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of
>> simple processes has been done correctly.
>>
>> I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but
>> am starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what
>> I need.
>>
>> The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on
>> eCommerce.
>
> I think the community is more diverse but "web companies focused on
> eCommerce" are more vocal indeed.
>
>> Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions
>> of OfBiz.
>
> Few, not many, you can refer to the top of this page
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List
>
>
>> I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an
>> accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the
>> parties, AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery
>> tracking.
>> It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in
>> explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to
>> work.
>> I do not need more overhead.
>
> There is a price to pay to be free
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien (I guess you know how
> to use Google translate)
>
>>
>> If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to
>> invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations
>> using it who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried
>> that it will never get to be a polished product.
>
> I think Adrian already well explained this point. To add something:
> I'm currently working on a project where OFBiz is only seen as a
> services engine, most people using OFBiz don't care about its UI,
> because of what Adrian explained.
>
> Jacques
>
>>
>> I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I
>> had to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as
>> software development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I
>> think could help improve some of our processes.
>>
>> As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we
>> do go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other
>> team members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.
>>
>> Probably just more ranting!
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or
>>> are you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to
>>> your standards?
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum
>>> Sandglass Software
>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>
>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>
>>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because
>>>> they
>>>> are not paid?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good
>>>> documentation.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even
>>>>>> include a
>>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing
>>>>>> to be
>>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of
>>>>>>>> on-line
>>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested"
>>>>>>>> (try to
>>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production
>>>>>>>> database and
>>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests"
>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do
>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made
>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked
>>>>>>>> on in a
>>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target
>>>>>>>> level of
>>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release
>>>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will
>>>>>>>>>> supersede
>>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on
>>>>>>>>>> the 12.04
>>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote
>>>>>>>>>> affirmatively
>>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative
>>>>>>>>>> votes.
>>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will
>>>>>>>>>> cancel the
>>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as
>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Le 16/06/2014 22:54, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
> A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no comments
> or questions about documentation.
>
> I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was ready for use.
>
> I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.
>
> The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
> Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of simple processes has been done correctly.
>
> I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.
>
> The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on eCommerce.
I think the community is more diverse but "web companies focused on eCommerce" are more vocal indeed.
> Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of OfBiz.
Few, not many, you can refer to the top of this page https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+User+List
> I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties, AR and AP
> while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.
> It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
> I do not need more overhead.
There is a price to pay to be free http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien (I guess you know how to use Google translate)
>
> If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using it who
> are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will never get to be a polished product.
I think Adrian already well explained this point. To add something: I'm currently working on a project where OFBiz is only seen as a services engine,
most people using OFBiz don't care about its UI, because of what Adrian explained.
Jacques
>
> I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software
> development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could help improve some of our processes.
>
> As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team members
> already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.
>
> Probably just more ranting!
>
>
> Ron
>
> On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards?
>>
>> Adrian Crum
>> Sandglass Software
>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>
>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>
>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>>> are not paid?
>>>
>>>
>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>
>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Perfect answer for one of the assertion, maybe we should state that more obviously somewhere?
I will try to answer to other assertions later...
Jacques
Le 16/06/2014 23:17, Adrian Crum a écrit :
> Your evaluation of the UI is correct. It is very generic and it is intended to demonstrate the data model and services. That is intentional.
>
> Every business is different, so a typical deployment will consist of a custom UI tailored for the target business. So, you are correct that most
> members of the dev mailing list use OFBiz a framework to build custom products.
>
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>
> On 6/16/2014 1:54 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>> A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier
>> exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no
>> comments or questions about documentation.
>>
>> I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was
>> ready for use.
>>
>> I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.
>>
>> The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end
>> processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
>> Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of
>> simple processes has been done correctly.
>>
>> I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am
>> starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.
>>
>> The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on
>> eCommerce.
>> Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of
>> OfBiz.
>> I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an
>> accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties,
>> AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.
>> It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in
>> explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
>> I do not need more overhead.
>>
>> If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to
>> invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using
>> it who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will
>> never get to be a polished product.
>>
>> I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had
>> to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software
>> development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could
>> help improve some of our processes.
>>
>> As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do
>> go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team
>> members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.
>>
>> Probably just more ranting!
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or
>>> are you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your
>>> standards?
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum
>>> Sandglass Software
>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>
>>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>>
>>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>>>> are not paid?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested"
>>>>>>>> (try to
>>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do
>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on
>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will
>>>>>>>>>> supersede
>>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the
>>>>>>>>>> 12.04
>>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote
>>>>>>>>>> affirmatively
>>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
Your evaluation of the UI is correct. It is very generic and it is
intended to demonstrate the data model and services. That is intentional.
Every business is different, so a typical deployment will consist of a
custom UI tailored for the target business. So, you are correct that
most members of the dev mailing list use OFBiz a framework to build
custom products.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 6/16/2014 1:54 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
> A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier
> exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no
> comments or questions about documentation.
>
> I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was
> ready for use.
>
> I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.
>
> The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end
> processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
> Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of
> simple processes has been done correctly.
>
> I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am
> starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.
>
> The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on
> eCommerce.
> Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of
> OfBiz.
> I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an
> accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties,
> AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.
> It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in
> explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
> I do not need more overhead.
>
> If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to
> invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using
> it who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will
> never get to be a polished product.
>
> I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had
> to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software
> development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could
> help improve some of our processes.
>
> As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do
> go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team
> members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.
>
> Probably just more ranting!
>
>
> Ron
>
> On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or
>> are you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your
>> standards?
>>
>> Adrian Crum
>> Sandglass Software
>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>
>> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>>
>>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>>> are not paid?
>>>
>>>
>>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>>
>>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested"
>>>>>>> (try to
>>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on
>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will
>>>>>>>>> supersede
>>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the
>>>>>>>>> 12.04
>>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote
>>>>>>>>> affirmatively
>>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
A bit of both. There were some encouraging words written in earlier
exchanges about documentation but a release just got approved with no
comments or questions about documentation.
I had high hopes that OfBiz would be a more polished product that was
ready for use.
I am disappointed in the on-line and wiki documentation.
The UI does not seem very user-friendly. It seems that the end-to-end
processes reflect the framework rather than the use case.
Without any documentation, it is hard to know if my investigation of
simple processes has been done correctly.
I am still looking to see if it has the functionality that I need but am
starting to look at other alternatives since I have not found what I need.
The user list seems to be mostly web companies that are focused on
eCommerce.
Many seem to be selling customization services or customized versions of
OfBiz.
I am looking for a product that I can install and turn over to an
accountant and a bookkeeper to setup the chart of accounts, the parties,
AR and AP while I focus on the product catalog and delivery tracking.
It appears that I will have to invest a large amount of time in
explaining the framework and UI to people who just want accounting to work.
I do not need more overhead.
If the people who are using it to generate income are not willing to
invest in UI and documentation and there are no big corporations using
it who are willing to invest in supporting it, I am worried that it will
never get to be a polished product.
I do like the technology of the framework and could extend it if I had
to since it does fit with our core competencies as far as software
development goes. It does have a lot of functionality that I think could
help improve some of our processes.
As I said earlier, I am willing to help out with documentation if we do
go ahead but I do not have the time to dig for facts that other team
members already possess but are too lazy or whatever to share.
Probably just more ranting!
Ron
On 16/06/2014 2:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or
> are you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your
> standards?
>
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>
> On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>>
>> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
>> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
>> are not paid?
>>
>>
>> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>>
>>>
>>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>>
>> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
>> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
>> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
>> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
>> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>> Adrian Crum
>>> Sandglass Software
>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>
>>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>>> draft Release Note.
>>>>
>>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested"
>>>>>> (try to
>>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>>> (on-line
>>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will
>>>>>>>> supersede
>>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the
>>>>>>>> 12.04
>>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote
>>>>>>>> affirmatively
>>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are
you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards?
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
> On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
>> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
>
> Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
> meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
> are not paid?
>
>
> There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>
>>
>> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
>> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>>
> No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
> It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
> reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
> files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
> writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
>
> Ron
>
>> Adrian Crum
>> Sandglass Software
>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>
>> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>>> draft Release Note.
>>>
>>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>>> version 12.x.x release?
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>>
>>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>> Sandglass Software
>>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>>> -1
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>>> the
>>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>>> (on-line
>>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>>> documentation?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>>> any
>>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>>> that
>>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
> Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that
meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they
are not paid?
There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation.
>
> Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
> the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
>
No wonder the docs are in such poor shape.
It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to
reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config
files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else
writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer.
Ron
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>
> On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
>> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
>> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
>> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
>> draft Release Note.
>>
>> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
>> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
>> version 12.x.x release?
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>>
>>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum
>>> Sandglass Software
>>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>>
>>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>> -1
>>>>
>>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless
>>>> the
>>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete"
>>>> (on-line
>>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>>> when you click on it).
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>>
>>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>>> documentation?
>>>>
>>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without
>>>> any
>>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation
>>>> that
>>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>>> release, mandatory.
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha:
>>>>>> hashes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
>>>>>> cases
>>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>>> manager."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project.
Therefore, there is no "industry standard."
Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using
the software and asking questions on the user mailing list.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>
> And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
> Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
> the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
> The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
> draft Release Note.
>
> Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
> correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
> version 12.x.x release?
>
> Ron
>
> On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
>> existed when the release branch was created.
>>
>> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
>> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>>
>> Adrian Crum
>> Sandglass Software
>> www.sandglass-software.com
>>
>> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>> -1
>>>
>>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless the
>>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" (on-line
>>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>>> when you click on it).
>>>
>>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>>
>>> Are the new features at least documented?
>>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>>> documentation?
>>>
>>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without any
>>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation that
>>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>>> release, mandatory.
>>>
>>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>>> the PMC agrees?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>>
>>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>>
>>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>>
>>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>>
>>>>> and are:
>>>>>
>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>>>>>
>>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>>
>>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases
>>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>>> manager."
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation?
Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what
the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)?
The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a
draft Release Note.
Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be
correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a
version 12.x.x release?
Ron
On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
> existed when the release branch was created.
>
> If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk,
> then feel free to submit patches to Jira.
>
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>
> On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>> -1
>>
>> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
>> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
>> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
>> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless the
>> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" (on-line
>> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
>> when you click on it).
>>
>> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>>
>> Are the new features at least documented?
>> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
>> documentation?
>>
>> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without any
>> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation that
>> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
>> release, mandatory.
>>
>> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
>> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
>> the PMC agrees?
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>>
>>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>>
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>>
>>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>>
>>>> (everyone else)
>>>>
>>>> and are:
>>>>
>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>>>>
>>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>>
>>>> Vote:
>>>>
>>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>>
>>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>>> For more details about this process please read
>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>
>>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases
>>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>>> manager."
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that
existed when the release branch was created.
If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, then
feel free to submit patches to Jira.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
> -1
>
> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
> help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
> install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
> you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless the
> test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" (on-line
> help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
> when you click on it).
>
> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>
> Are the new features at least documented?
> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
> documentation?
>
> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without any
> attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation that
> it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
> release, mandatory.
>
> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
> documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
> the PMC agrees?
>
>
> Ron
>
>
> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>>> 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major
>>> release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede
>>> the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>
>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>
>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>
>>> (everyone else)
>>>
>>> and are:
>>>
>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>>> branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>>>
>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>>> instructions on testing the signatures see
>>> http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>
>>> Vote:
>>>
>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>
>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>> For more details about this process please read
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>
>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>>> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
>>> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
>>> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
>>> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases
>>> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
>>> manager."
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Hi Ron,
On Jun 16, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
> -1
>
> Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless the test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" (on-line help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything when you click on it).
>
> I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
>
Unfortunately our releases do not include documentation: the reason is that the amount and quality of documentation available is not good enough for being part of a release.
> Are the new features at least documented?
No, even if in this specific case we are delivering a bug fix release with no new features.
> Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the documentation?
>
No, even if you can find some sparse information here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Main+New+Features
and in Jira.
> If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without any attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation that it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a release, mandatory.
I disagree that we should implement this strategy to improve the documentation: the OFBiz project doesn't release very often and in the past this was a problem for the ASF; now the situation is improved and we should go on with what we are doing; of course we should always try to improve our product (code and documentation).
But I completely agree with you that the community should focus on the creation and maintenance of good documentation; when this will happen we could bundle it with the releases or publish as a separate product ("The Apache OFBiz Manual" or similar).
>
> Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which the PMC agrees?
We should really start this conversation in the dev list (rather than Jira or the PMC private list); some topics to discuss: how can we improve the existing documentation? (Confluence vs ASF CMS vs OFBiz website vs etc..) Who should maintain it? (Public wiki with moderators vs committers specialized in writing docs vs etc...) What kind of documentation is essential and what is mandatory? Who is the target audience of the documents (Tech teams interested in the customization of OFBiz vs End users vs ...) How to use Jira to automatically generate release notes?
Jacopo
>
>
> Ron
>
>
> On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>>
>>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>>
>>> (committers only) or from here:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>>
>>> (everyone else)
>>>
>>> and are:
>>>
>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>>>
>>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>>
>>> Vote:
>>>
>>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>>> [ -1] do not release
>>>
>>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>>> For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>
>>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager."
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>
>
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
-1
Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line
help, it is hard to see how this could be considered "tested" (try to
install it using the docs for a "recommended" production database and
you can see it is not possible that it passed "manual tests" unless the
test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or "complete" (on-line
help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything
when you click on it).
I don't see any Release notes in the distribution.
Are the new features at least documented?
Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the
documentation?
If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without any
attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation that
it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a
release, mandatory.
Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of
documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which
the PMC agrees?
Ron
On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> +1
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>
>> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>>
>> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>>
>> (committers only) or from here:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>>
>> (everyone else)
>>
>> and are:
>>
>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>> * KEYS: text file with keys
>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>>
>> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>>
>> Vote:
>>
>> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>> [ -1] do not release
>>
>> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>> For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> The following text is quoted from the above url:
>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager."
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
+1
Jacopo
On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>
> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>
> (committers only) or from here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>
> (everyone else)
>
> and are:
>
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
> * KEYS: text file with keys
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>
> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
> [ -1] do not release
>
> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
> For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> The following text is quoted from the above url:
> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager."
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Anil Patel <an...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
+1
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
COO
Hotwax Media Inc
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/
ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor
http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors
On Jun 9, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>
> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>
> (committers only) or from here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>
> (everyone else)
>
> and are:
>
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
> * KEYS: text file with keys
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>
> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
> [ -1] do not release
>
> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
> For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> The following text is quoted from the above url:
> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager."
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
+1
Regards
Scott
On 9 June 2014 15:09:02 BST, Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the
>12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release
>number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the
>release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>
>The release files can be downloaded from here:
>
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>
>(committers only) or from here:
>
>http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>
>(everyone else)
>
>and are:
>
>* apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04
>branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
>* KEYS: text file with keys
>* apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
>* apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>
>Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for
>instructions on testing the signatures see
>http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>
>Vote:
>
>[ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
>[ -1] do not release
>
>This vote will be closed in 5 days.
>For more details about this process please read
>http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
>The following text is quoted from the above url:
>"Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
>approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for
>release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases
>may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote
>if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate
>decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager."
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Jacopo
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
[VOTE] [RESULT] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Congratulations, this vote has passed with the following results:
[+1] 7
[-1] 0
The minimum (3) number of +1 votes from PMC members has been reached with 5 votes from Jacques, Scott, Ashish, Anil, Jacopo
I will proceed with the remaining steps required to release the package.
Jacopo
On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 12.04.03" (major release number: "12.04"; minor release number: "03"), will supersede the release "Apache OFBiz 12.04.02".
>
> The release files can be downloaded from here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/
>
> (committers only) or from here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/
>
> (everyone else)
>
> and are:
>
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now)
> * KEYS: text file with keys
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file
> * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes
>
> Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html).
>
> Vote:
>
> [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
> [ -1] do not release
>
> This vote will be closed in 5 days.
> For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> The following text is quoted from the above url:
> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager."
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jacopo