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 2012/02/26 16:29:21 UTC
Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
We have recently discussed in a few threads some strategies for the definition of a release roadmap for OFBiz; I am summarizing here the main points (old and new) because there seems to be a general agreement around them and we should be ready to officialize them and then stick to this plan:
* the release roadmap will be time-based rather than feature-based
* every year a new release branch is created on April, generating a new Major Release Number in the format YY.MM (this is *not* a release)
* from each active release branch we will release 2 releases every year (approx every 6 months); the names of the releases will be YY.MM.<aa> where aa is a two digits sequential number (01 is the first release, 02 the second etc..)
* no more than 3 active release branches will be maintained simultaneously; for this reason we will close the oldest release branch every year sometimes before April (when the new one is created)
An outstanding topic is the following:
* do we still want to wait approx 1 year before releasing the first release of a branch?
I don't have a strong preference but maybe a stabilization period of 6 months could be enough... but I don't know. In the plan below I am proposing a stabilization period of 10 months.
As a result of the above rules, we will release approx 5 releases per year considering the following lifecycle of a release branch:
* created in April
* first year: stabilization; no new releases are created
* second year: two releases 01 and 02
* third year: two releases 03 and 04
* fourth year: one release 05 and then the branch is closed
If we name A (oldest), B and C (newest) the three active release branches, then we could stick to the following roadmap:
C: new release on February and August
B: new release on March and September
A: new (last) release on April and then closed (when on April the new branch D is created)
For example:
2015
Jan
Feb C1 (after mostly 10 months of stabilization)
Mar B3
Apr A5 (last); D is created
May
Jun
Jul
Aug C2
Sep B4
Oct
Nov
Dec
2016
Jan
Feb D1
Mar C3
Apr B5 (last); E is created
May
Jun
Jul
Aug D2
Sep C4
Oct
Nov
Dec
2016
Jan
Feb E1
Mar D3
Apr C5 (last); F is created
May
Jun
Jul
Aug E2
Sep D4
Oct
Nov
Dec
etc...
Kind regards
Jacopo
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Apr 7, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Minor: I have added normally in "a new Major Release Number is normally created every year in April". Just in case we have suddenly
> to change our convention regarding the date (I see no reasons but why not)
Thank you
Jacopo
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Thanks Christian,
From: "Christian Geisert" <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>
> Jacques Le Roux schrieb:
>
> [..]
>
>> I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra
>> (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
>> redirection to ask to infra.
>
> I'm about to get it finally running..
>
> Christian
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent
discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
Jacques Le Roux schrieb:
[..]
> I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra
> (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
> redirection to ask to infra.
I'm about to get it finally running..
Christian
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Pierre Smits" <pi...@gmail.com>
> This is a reasonable compromise.
>
> My suggestion for the URL regarding the latest stable release:
> http(s)://demo.ofbiz.apache.org
> or:
> http(s)://demo-ofbiz.apache.org
This will not change, it was already difficult to get the names from ASF/infra, sot it will still be trunk, stable and old, with
currently stable=10 and old=9
Christian worked on it this morning and got both stable and old running R10.04 (branch). They are now running R9.04 (branch). I
guess he crossed an issue, or did not want to have stable running 10 already, Christian?
Running branches allows to run revisions with as less bugs as possible
Jacques
> Regards,
>
> Pierre
>
> Op 23 april 2012 10:25 schreef Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com
>> het volgende:
>
>> What we could do is still support it but don't link it from main site and
>> such
>> Because it's very convenient for committers to have another running trunk
>> system
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Pierre Smits" <pi...@gmail.com>
>>
>> I agree.
>>>
>>> Demo environments is not for OFBiz developers.
>>> If you want to have an OFBiz developer to have a viewpoint on trunk where
>>> they can experience what has been changed in trunk I believe that there
>>> are
>>> betters means available and in place already (SVN, CI reports, etc)
>>>
>>> As far as I can see it, a demo environment of trunk needs to have a
>>> regular
>>> (daily?) deployment of code and demo data. This could potentially lead to
>>> having an upload being done to the demo location at just the moment that a
>>> OFBiz committer has partially uploaded his commits to trunk and the demo
>>> breaks during build and anyone (not only OFBiz developers) experiences a
>>> broken demo. Giving the community unnecessary headaches about fixing the
>>> demo environment than OFBiz.
>>> Look at how often Jacques had to step in to look at why demo-trunk had
>>> been
>>> broken.
>>>
>>> This is not something we should want to have...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Pierre
>>>
>>> Op 23 april 2012 09:27 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
>>> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.**com <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>>
>>> het volgende:
>>>
>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules,
>>>> regulations
>>>> > and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
>>>>
>>>> We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is
>>>> unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and
>>>> intended
>>>> for larger audience.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent
discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
This is a reasonable compromise.
My suggestion for the URL regarding the latest stable release:
http(s)://demo.ofbiz.apache.org
or:
http(s)://demo-ofbiz.apache.org
Regards,
Pierre
Op 23 april 2012 10:25 schreef Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com
> het volgende:
> What we could do is still support it but don't link it from main site and
> such
> Because it's very convenient for committers to have another running trunk
> system
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Pierre Smits" <pi...@gmail.com>
>
> I agree.
>>
>> Demo environments is not for OFBiz developers.
>> If you want to have an OFBiz developer to have a viewpoint on trunk where
>> they can experience what has been changed in trunk I believe that there
>> are
>> betters means available and in place already (SVN, CI reports, etc)
>>
>> As far as I can see it, a demo environment of trunk needs to have a
>> regular
>> (daily?) deployment of code and demo data. This could potentially lead to
>> having an upload being done to the demo location at just the moment that a
>> OFBiz committer has partially uploaded his commits to trunk and the demo
>> breaks during build and anyone (not only OFBiz developers) experiences a
>> broken demo. Giving the community unnecessary headaches about fixing the
>> demo environment than OFBiz.
>> Look at how often Jacques had to step in to look at why demo-trunk had
>> been
>> broken.
>>
>> This is not something we should want to have...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>> Op 23 april 2012 09:27 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
>> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.**com <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>>
>> het volgende:
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>
>>> > I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules,
>>> regulations
>>> > and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
>>>
>>> We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is
>>> unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and
>>> intended
>>> for larger audience.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
What we could do is still support it but don't link it from main site and such
Because it's very convenient for committers to have another running trunk system
Jacques
From: "Pierre Smits" <pi...@gmail.com>
>I agree.
>
> Demo environments is not for OFBiz developers.
> If you want to have an OFBiz developer to have a viewpoint on trunk where
> they can experience what has been changed in trunk I believe that there are
> betters means available and in place already (SVN, CI reports, etc)
>
> As far as I can see it, a demo environment of trunk needs to have a regular
> (daily?) deployment of code and demo data. This could potentially lead to
> having an upload being done to the demo location at just the moment that a
> OFBiz committer has partially uploaded his commits to trunk and the demo
> breaks during build and anyone (not only OFBiz developers) experiences a
> broken demo. Giving the community unnecessary headaches about fixing the
> demo environment than OFBiz.
> Look at how often Jacques had to step in to look at why demo-trunk had been
> broken.
>
> This is not something we should want to have...
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre
>
> Op 23 april 2012 09:27 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
>
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>
>> > I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules,
>> regulations
>> > and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
>>
>> We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is
>> unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and intended
>> for larger audience.
>>
>> Jacopo
>
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent
discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
I agree.
Demo environments is not for OFBiz developers.
If you want to have an OFBiz developer to have a viewpoint on trunk where
they can experience what has been changed in trunk I believe that there are
betters means available and in place already (SVN, CI reports, etc)
As far as I can see it, a demo environment of trunk needs to have a regular
(daily?) deployment of code and demo data. This could potentially lead to
having an upload being done to the demo location at just the moment that a
OFBiz committer has partially uploaded his commits to trunk and the demo
breaks during build and anyone (not only OFBiz developers) experiences a
broken demo. Giving the community unnecessary headaches about fixing the
demo environment than OFBiz.
Look at how often Jacques had to step in to look at why demo-trunk had been
broken.
This is not something we should want to have...
Regards,
Pierre
Op 23 april 2012 09:27 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>
> > I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules,
> regulations
> > and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
>
> We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is
> unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and intended
> for larger audience.
>
> Jacopo
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules, regulations
> and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and intended for larger audience.
Jacopo
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent
discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jacques,
I believe it is not good to expose potential end users to something that
can be expected to be broken (meaning trunk) as a demo environment, because
of the high rate of development taking place in that environment.
I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules, regulations
and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
Therefore:
-1 on having trunk as demo
+1 on having latest stable release as demo
Given the fact that the older release branches are just maintenance
releases and that we recommend that new end users should look at the latest
stable release (currently 10.04.02) it would not make sense to do demos of
older branches.
Regards,
Pierre
Op 22 april 2012 10:09 schreef Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com
> het volgende:
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
>
>> Some questions to the community:
>> =======================
>> R10.04 is now our stable branch and we have decided to no longer support
>> releases under our current stable. Since we have enough
>> resources, some time ago, I had suggested to run in demo not only the
>> trunk and stable but also the previous release (would be at
>> the moment R09.04). Christian has done the work for that (thanks
>> Christian!). But now, because of our new policy regarding
>> releases,
>> I would like to ask the community if we should run 3 (trunk, stable,
>> older) or only 2 demos?
>>
>
> I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra
> (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
> redirection to ask to infra.
>
> We currently have
>
> trunk : demo-trunk
> branch R10.04: demo-stable
> branch R10.04: demo-old
>
> So we do we currently want
>
> trunk : demo-trunk
> branch R10.04: demo-stable
> branch R09.04: demo-old
>
> or
>
> trunk : demo-trunk
> branch R11.04: demo-stable
> branch R10.04: demo-old
>
> or
>
> Or only the trunk and last branch?
>
> etc.
>
> In other words which combination do you prefer?
>
>
> We are curently still running R09.04 as our stable demo. I saw that
>> someone has done the work to be able to run R10.04
>> (demo-branch10.4-setup.diff, not sure if it has been applied?). Is it not
>> the time to switch to it as our stable?
>>
>
> It should be already done, since we don't support R09.04 anymore. But on
> the other hand, there are certainly still interested users out there and
> supporting or not is not a criterium
>
> Also, since we now we have some RTL users and our default Theme Tomahawk
>> does not allow them to use their prefered or mother
>> tongue
>> language. I'd like to ask the community if they would not like to change
>> for Flat-Grey? An alternative would be to keep Tomahawk
>> as
>> default and put a word about that in footer, but it's less convenient...
>>
>
> Nobody care?
>
> Jacques
>
> Jacques
>>
>
Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
> Some questions to the community:
> =======================
> R10.04 is now our stable branch and we have decided to no longer support releases under our current stable. Since we have enough
> resources, some time ago, I had suggested to run in demo not only the trunk and stable but also the previous release (would be at
> the moment R09.04). Christian has done the work for that (thanks Christian!). But now, because of our new policy regarding
> releases,
> I would like to ask the community if we should run 3 (trunk, stable, older) or only 2 demos?
I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
redirection to ask to infra.
We currently have
trunk : demo-trunk
branch R10.04: demo-stable
branch R10.04: demo-old
So we do we currently want
trunk : demo-trunk
branch R10.04: demo-stable
branch R09.04: demo-old
or
trunk : demo-trunk
branch R11.04: demo-stable
branch R10.04: demo-old
or
Or only the trunk and last branch?
etc.
In other words which combination do you prefer?
> We are curently still running R09.04 as our stable demo. I saw that someone has done the work to be able to run R10.04
> (demo-branch10.4-setup.diff, not sure if it has been applied?). Is it not the time to switch to it as our stable?
It should be already done, since we don't support R09.04 anymore. But on the other hand, there are certainly still interested users
out there and supporting or not is not a criterium
> Also, since we now we have some RTL users and our default Theme Tomahawk does not allow them to use their prefered or mother
> tongue
> language. I'd like to ask the community if they would not like to change for Flat-Grey? An alternative would be to keep Tomahawk
> as
> default and put a word about that in footer, but it's less convenient...
Nobody care?
Jacques
> Jacques
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Hi Jacopo,
Thanks for the good work.
Minor: I have added normally in "a new Major Release Number is normally created every year in April". Just in case we have suddenly
to change our convention regarding the date (I see no reasons but why not)
For demo mainteners information:
======================
This morning, I have checked and adjusted all the scripts for trunk changes:
automatically used each day: check-svn-update.sh
convenient ones I created for manual tasks : manual.sh, trunk-manual.sh, stable-manual.sh
At some point we were running a buggy version of the JDK and then switched to jdk1.6.0_23 in our startofbiz.sh
files:
# temporary fix for a bug in Hot-Spot before jdk1.6.0_22(b09)
JAVA="/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sunjdk/jdk1.6.0_23/bin/java"
I forgot that when I switched to ant start-batch in trunk but fortunately we no longer need to worry since infra provides now by
default /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-1.6.0.26
Some questions to the community:
=======================
R10.04 is now our stable branch and we have decided to no longer support releases under our current stable. Since we have enough
resources, some time ago, I had suggested to run in demo not only the trunk and stable but also the previous release (would be at
the moment R09.04). Christian has done the work for that (thanks Christian!). But now, because of our new policy regarding releases,
I would like to ask the community if we should run 3 (trunk, stable, older) or only 2 demos?
We are curently still running R09.04 as our stable demo. I saw that someone has done the work to be able to run R10.04
(demo-branch10.4-setup.diff, not sure if it has been applied?). Is it not the time to switch to it as our stable?
Also, since we now we have some RTL users and our default Theme Tomahawk does not allow them to use their prefered or mother tongue
language. I'd like to ask the community if they would not like to change for Flat-Grey? An alternative would be to keep Tomahawk as
default and put a word about that in footer, but it's less convenient...
Jacques
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> Thank you Hans,
>
> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
> For the trunk all the information is here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>
> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>
>> congratulations.
>>
>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>
>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the
>>>>> only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of
>>>> way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>
>
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap
and some proposals
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
As the Apache policies are not against it, I ask you to re-add the trunk
link to the download page in order not to block the future where
everybody will use the trunk in a continuous testing and continuous
deploying environment avoiding the 'approved releases' upgrade nightmare
Hans
On 04/07/2012 04:28 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> However times are changing and continuous testing and continuous deploying will take over 'approved' releases where upgrading is a nightmare....
> Yeah, hopefully this will happen soon and at that point I am pretty sure that the ASF will adjust its policies accordingly.
>
> Jacopo
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> However times are changing and continuous testing and continuous deploying will take over 'approved' releases where upgrading is a nightmare....
Yeah, hopefully this will happen soon and at that point I am pretty sure that the ASF will adjust its policies accordingly.
Jacopo
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap
and some proposals
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Jacopo, thank you for your compliments,
However times are changing and continuous testing and continuous
deploying will take over 'approved' releases where upgrading is a
nightmare....
Regards,
Hans
On 04/07/2012 03:48 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
> Not in itself: but it is wrong and against the ASF policies to push the users to use unofficial versions like you are often doing (ignoring your responsibilities as a PMC member) and adding a link from that page helps in this direction. This is why I am against this.
>
>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
> I guess that you forgot to add a smiley to the above sentence... but no, I am simply working to help OFBiz be a project inline with the directions of the ASF.
> But talking about schools, I also have something to say to you: study more, read more, understand more, improve the quality of the work you contribute (that is still surprisingly low after all these years) and be grateful and respectful to the ASF, to the OFBiz project and to the fortune that made you a committer and PMC of this important open source project.
>
> Jacopo
>
>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>
>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>
>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>
>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>
>>>> congratulations.
>>>>
>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> But Apache does not prohibit it?
Not in itself: but it is wrong and against the ASF policies to push the users to use unofficial versions like you are often doing (ignoring your responsibilities as a PMC member) and adding a link from that page helps in this direction. This is why I am against this.
>
> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
I guess that you forgot to add a smiley to the above sentence... but no, I am simply working to help OFBiz be a project inline with the directions of the ASF.
But talking about schools, I also have something to say to you: study more, read more, understand more, improve the quality of the work you contribute (that is still surprisingly low after all these years) and be grateful and respectful to the ASF, to the OFBiz project and to the fortune that made you a committer and PMC of this important open source project.
Jacopo
>
> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>
> Hans
>
> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Thank you Hans,
>>
>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>
>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>
>>> congratulations.
>>>
>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>
>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Pierre Smits" <pi...@gmail.com>
> Hi All,
>
> I think it is very unwise to let endusers use the most disruptive version
> available (the trunk) for evaluation purposes. It should only be available
> for developers or other, more technically experienced persons who want to
> assess the underlying (technical) implementations.
>
> We have both communications in place. At the right places in the site.
+1
> The statement "the trunk is bug free is and all problems are fixed within
> hours" not only misleads the enduser, but it also puts an enormous pressure
> on developers and committers. Plus, it might lead to the ASF being liable
> for not delivering.
Seems most of us are heading in the same direction..
Jacques
> Regards,
>
> Pierre
>
> Op 8 april 2012 10:55 schreef Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com> het
> volgende:
>
>> Wow what a long thread for such a simple issue, thanks for being so
>> patient Jacopo.
>>
>> At the end of the day users simply shouldn't be downloading the trunk,
>> it's intended for OFBiz developers and testers only. To pretend that the
>> trunk is bug free is and "all problems are fixed within hours" is naive at
>> best and a straight out lie at worst. The trunk also isn't guaranteed to
>> conform to the ASLv2 and at numerous points in the past it hasn't.
>> Continuous deployment from the trunk is a flawed strategy that puts the
>> stability of your system into the hands of a random collection of OFBiz
>> committers of varying quality, how that makes good business sense to anyone
>> is beyond me.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 8/04/2012, at 8:31 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>> > "Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage
>> non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release
>> candidates, or any other similar package."
>> >
>> > Jacopo
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> >
>> >> The page has a button "Download" to point a user (developer or not) to
>> the download of ofbiz system files.
>> >>
>> >> Trunk should be part of that.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Hans
>> >>
>> >> On 04/08/2012 03:06 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> >>> By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>> >>>
>> >>> I am quoting here a relevant part:
>> >>>
>> >>> =================================
>> >>> What Is A Release?
>> >>> Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the
>> group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the
>> group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being
>> instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each
>> PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label
>> the package is a secondary issue, described below.
>> >>>
>> >>> During the process of developing software and preparing a release,
>> various packages are made available to the developer community for testing
>> purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might
>> encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots,
>> release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are
>> supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list
>> (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the
>> package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test
>> packages, then remove them.
>> >>>
>> >>> Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for
>> releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often.
>> Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
>> >>> =================================
>> >>>
>> >>> Jacopo
>> >>>
>> >>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er...
>> compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war
>> please)...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain
>> that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
>> >>>> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for
>> the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
>> >>>> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a
>> big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
>> >>>> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link
>> there is now
>> >>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started(BTW this needs certainly an update, but
>> actually
>> >>>> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way:
>> http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time
>> now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
>> >>>> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04
>> release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
>> >>>> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jacques
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> >>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by
>> Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>> >>>>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power,
>> the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>> >>>>> just because we let him do this.
>> >>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the
>> trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>> >>>>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in
>> favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>> >>>>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing
>> this just to please Hans.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Jacopo
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> >>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>> >>>>>> Right
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk
>> (obvious)
>> >>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>> >>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still
>> potential OFBiz users
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>> >>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>> >>>>>> out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>> >>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state
>> of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>> >>>>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Jacopo
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>> >>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Hans
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include
>> there links to download code that has not been officially
>> >>>>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF
>> asked us to fix the page in the past.
>> >>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become
>> "more official").
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at
>> least mentioned.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section
>> containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and
>> achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in
>> advance the migration of their custom instance.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st
>> official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site
>> update and especially demos updates)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of
>> other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should
>> be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a
>> bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead
>> regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers
>> activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release
roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hi All,
I think it is very unwise to let endusers use the most disruptive version
available (the trunk) for evaluation purposes. It should only be available
for developers or other, more technically experienced persons who want to
assess the underlying (technical) implementations.
We have both communications in place. At the right places in the site.
The statement "the trunk is bug free is and all problems are fixed within
hours" not only misleads the enduser, but it also puts an enormous pressure
on developers and committers. Plus, it might lead to the ASF being liable
for not delivering.
Regards,
Pierre
Op 8 april 2012 10:55 schreef Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com> het
volgende:
> Wow what a long thread for such a simple issue, thanks for being so
> patient Jacopo.
>
> At the end of the day users simply shouldn't be downloading the trunk,
> it's intended for OFBiz developers and testers only. To pretend that the
> trunk is bug free is and "all problems are fixed within hours" is naive at
> best and a straight out lie at worst. The trunk also isn't guaranteed to
> conform to the ASLv2 and at numerous points in the past it hasn't.
> Continuous deployment from the trunk is a flawed strategy that puts the
> stability of your system into the hands of a random collection of OFBiz
> committers of varying quality, how that makes good business sense to anyone
> is beyond me.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 8/04/2012, at 8:31 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
> > "Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage
> non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release
> candidates, or any other similar package."
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
> >
> > On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >
> >> The page has a button "Download" to point a user (developer or not) to
> the download of ofbiz system files.
> >>
> >> Trunk should be part of that.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Hans
> >>
> >> On 04/08/2012 03:06 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>> By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
> >>>
> >>> I am quoting here a relevant part:
> >>>
> >>> =================================
> >>> What Is A Release?
> >>> Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the
> group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the
> group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being
> instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each
> PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label
> the package is a secondary issue, described below.
> >>>
> >>> During the process of developing software and preparing a release,
> various packages are made available to the developer community for testing
> purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might
> encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots,
> release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are
> supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list
> (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the
> package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test
> packages, then remove them.
> >>>
> >>> Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for
> releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often.
> Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
> >>> =================================
> >>>
> >>> Jacopo
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er...
> compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war
> please)...
> >>>>
> >>>> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain
> that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
> >>>> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for
> the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
> >>>> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a
> big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
> >>>> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link
> there is now
> >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started(BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
> >>>> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way:
> http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
> >>>>
> >>>> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time
> now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
> >>>> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04
> release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
> >>>> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacques
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> >>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by
> Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
> >>>>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power,
> the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
> >>>>> just because we let him do this.
> >>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the
> trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
> >>>>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in
> favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
> >>>>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing
> this just to please Hans.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> >>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
> >>>>>> Right
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk
> (obvious)
> >>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
> >>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still
> potential OFBiz users
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
> >>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
> >>>>>> out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
> >>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state
> of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
> >>>>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include
> there links to download code that has not been officially
> >>>>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF
> asked us to fix the page in the past.
> >>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become
> "more official").
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at
> least mentioned.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section
> containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and
> achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in
> advance the migration of their custom instance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st
> official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site
> update and especially demos updates)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of
> other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should
> be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a
> bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead
> regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers
> activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Wow what a long thread for such a simple issue, thanks for being so patient Jacopo.
At the end of the day users simply shouldn't be downloading the trunk, it's intended for OFBiz developers and testers only. To pretend that the trunk is bug free is and "all problems are fixed within hours" is naive at best and a straight out lie at worst. The trunk also isn't guaranteed to conform to the ASLv2 and at numerous points in the past it hasn't. Continuous deployment from the trunk is a flawed strategy that puts the stability of your system into the hands of a random collection of OFBiz committers of varying quality, how that makes good business sense to anyone is beyond me.
Regards
Scott
On 8/04/2012, at 8:31 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> "Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package."
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> The page has a button "Download" to point a user (developer or not) to the download of ofbiz system files.
>>
>> Trunk should be part of that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/08/2012 03:06 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>>
>>> I am quoting here a relevant part:
>>>
>>> =================================
>>> What Is A Release?
>>> Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below.
>>>
>>> During the process of developing software and preparing a release, various packages are made available to the developer community for testing purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test packages, then remove them.
>>>
>>> Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often. Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
>>> =================================
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er... compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war please)...
>>>>
>>>> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
>>>> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
>>>> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
>>>> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link there is now
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started (BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
>>>> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way: http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
>>>>
>>>> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
>>>> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04 release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
>>>> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
>>>>
>>>> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>>>>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>>>>> just because we let him do this.
>>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>>>>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>>>>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>>>>>> out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>>>>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
"Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package."
Jacopo
On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> The page has a button "Download" to point a user (developer or not) to the download of ofbiz system files.
>
> Trunk should be part of that.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On 04/08/2012 03:06 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>
>> I am quoting here a relevant part:
>>
>> =================================
>> What Is A Release?
>> Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below.
>>
>> During the process of developing software and preparing a release, various packages are made available to the developer community for testing purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test packages, then remove them.
>>
>> Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often. Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
>> =================================
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er... compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war please)...
>>>
>>> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
>>> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
>>> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
>>> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link there is now
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started (BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
>>> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
>>>
>>> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way: http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
>>>
>>> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
>>> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04 release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
>>> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
>>>
>>> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>>>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>>>> just because we let him do this.
>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>>>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>>>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>>> Right
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>>
>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>>>>> out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>>>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap
and some proposals
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
The page has a button "Download" to point a user (developer or not) to
the download of ofbiz system files.
Trunk should be part of that.
Regards,
Hans
On 04/08/2012 03:06 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>
> I am quoting here a relevant part:
>
> =================================
> What Is A Release?
> Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below.
>
> During the process of developing software and preparing a release, various packages are made available to the developer community for testing purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test packages, then remove them.
>
> Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often. Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
> =================================
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er... compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war please)...
>>
>> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
>> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
>> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
>> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link there is now
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started (BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
>> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
>>
>> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way: http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
>>
>> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
>> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04 release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
>> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
>>
>> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>>> just because we let him do this.
>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>> Right
>>>>
>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>
>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>>>> out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
By the way, an interesting resource is the "Release FAQ":
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
I am quoting here a relevant part:
=================================
What Is A Release?
Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being instructed to download a package, then that package has been released. Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release. How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below.
During the process of developing software and preparing a release, various packages are made available to the developer community for testing purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such packages are the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public are downloading such test packages, then remove them.
Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more often. Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software development.
=================================
Jacopo
On Apr 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er... compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits war please)...
>
> For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
> inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
> easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
> instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link there is now
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started (BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
> all the documentation needs update and pruning).
>
> Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way: http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
>
> And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
> Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04 release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
> (trunk or releases) and we need both!
>
> Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
>
> Jacques
>
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>> just because we let him do this.
>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>
>>> Right
>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>
>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>
>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>
>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>>> out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker" <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Actually I don't care much. It was mostly to find a consens.... er... compromise. So I let Hans handles that if he wants (no commits
war please)...
For those who are relatively new to this ML, we should though explain that recommnending to use trunk to users has been the
inclination of OFBiz original creators. At this time it was vital for the project to get more contributions and I must say it's also
easier for committers to contribute directly (this is actually not a big deal, a patch is an easy way most of the time). See for
instance http://markmail.org/message/ee2mzldkkzg6im5x, the link there is now
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started (BTW this needs certainly an update, but actually
all the documentation needs update and pruning).
Jacopo was the 1st to propose another way: http://markmail.org/message/vh7jrgmwfmxrd4bh
And to clarify my position: I'm supporting releases for a long time now (I mean backporting bugs, sometimes at my expense ;o).
Fortunately it turns that it's easier and safer since the R10.04 release. I believe that this new way of doing allows 2 pathes
(trunk or releases) and we need both!
Hope this summarises well my POV and the situation
Jacques
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>just because we let him do this.
> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>
>> Right
>>
>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>
>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>
>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>
>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>> out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Hans Bakker" <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>
>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>
>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>
>
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap
and some proposals
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Hi Jacopo,
if that is the case i apologize, we got so far carried away, i lost
track completely, that i went back to the original question.
Regards,
Hans
On 04/08/2012 02:45 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> To summarize: you were accusing me and pointing your finger to my commit even if my commit doesn't have anything to do with what you are reporting here.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> Jacopo, i have a very simple question about a link which always worked:
>>
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip
>>
>> It was normally shown on this page:
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/
>>
>> now it does not work anymore.....
>>
>> My point is that this link should be reasonable visible somewhere preferably on the download page.
>>
>> enter "ofbiz trunk current zip" in google and you will see it is used pretty frequently (3030 times)
>> (it often also points to http://build.ofbiz.org/builds/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip and other links)
>>
>> If you simply not want do do what i asked for is fine. I now ran out of steam finally. :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/08/2012 01:03 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> On Apr 8, 2012, at 2:35 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jacopo,
>>>>
>>>> You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there from the start without trying to get a consensus.
>>> What are you talking about? I am shocked about how imprecise but this is blatant is ridiculous: what is the removal you are talking about? I simply added information about the new release schedule.
>>>
>>>> Sure, if everybody thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always very reliable and where problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and people selecting the download page should be aware of it.
>>>>
>>>> Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
>>>> http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
>>>> So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.
>>>>
>>> Hans, are you serious? Or you really don't understand? We have prominent links (2 of them) to the svn from the main page and we have a full page dedicated to svn instructions:
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>
>>> and no one would ever think to remove them: svn is essential information to get new contributions.
>>> The url to projects.apache.org (that *I* helped to have working on the DOAP file) is a good thing to have because it shows a summary of most relevant resources for OFBiz, including svn.
>>>
>>>> So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the latest version is following the latest internet developments.
>>>>
>>>> Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page?
>>> Do you mean the page that was created from a proposal I did a few years ago and that now you are using (undisturbed because of the lack of the community and PMC oversight on this) to add ads of your company and (unclear) links to your sites?
>>> Here is what I would do there:
>>> 1) remove all the references to companies and external sites
>>> 2) keep it as a working document (as we are doing) to prepare official "what's new" pages specific for each release branch
>>> 3) add links to these release branch specific "what's new" pages from the README of the branch, from the OFBiz website etc..
>>>
>>>> If people want to try it, where should they find the download link? And the trunk demo, how do they find the download link here too?
>>> The checkout of source code is not a download and I didn't move the instructions: they are still there and there is a prominent link from the main page.
>>> Hans, if you can concentrate it is not that difficult to get:
>>> 1) download page isfor "officially approved" releases only; the releases are served thru the ASF mirrors infrastructure that can *only* serve officially voted releases
>>> 2) the "source code/svn" page is for persons interested in the living versions of svn trunk and branches; we have already good information for this and in fact very few people ask "where are the source files?"
>>>
>>>> So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the download page was agreed or not.
>>> Ok, prepare your proposal and then start the vote thread.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
>>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>>>> Right
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
To summarize: you were accusing me and pointing your finger to my commit even if my commit doesn't have anything to do with what you are reporting here.
Jacopo
On Apr 8, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> Jacopo, i have a very simple question about a link which always worked:
>
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip
>
> It was normally shown on this page:
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/
>
> now it does not work anymore.....
>
> My point is that this link should be reasonable visible somewhere preferably on the download page.
>
> enter "ofbiz trunk current zip" in google and you will see it is used pretty frequently (3030 times)
> (it often also points to http://build.ofbiz.org/builds/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip and other links)
>
> If you simply not want do do what i asked for is fine. I now ran out of steam finally. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On 04/08/2012 01:03 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2012, at 2:35 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> Jacopo,
>>>
>>> You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there from the start without trying to get a consensus.
>> What are you talking about? I am shocked about how imprecise but this is blatant is ridiculous: what is the removal you are talking about? I simply added information about the new release schedule.
>>
>>> Sure, if everybody thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always very reliable and where problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and people selecting the download page should be aware of it.
>>>
>>> Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
>>> http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
>>> So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.
>>>
>> Hans, are you serious? Or you really don't understand? We have prominent links (2 of them) to the svn from the main page and we have a full page dedicated to svn instructions:
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>
>> and no one would ever think to remove them: svn is essential information to get new contributions.
>> The url to projects.apache.org (that *I* helped to have working on the DOAP file) is a good thing to have because it shows a summary of most relevant resources for OFBiz, including svn.
>>
>>> So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the latest version is following the latest internet developments.
>>>
>>> Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page?
>> Do you mean the page that was created from a proposal I did a few years ago and that now you are using (undisturbed because of the lack of the community and PMC oversight on this) to add ads of your company and (unclear) links to your sites?
>> Here is what I would do there:
>> 1) remove all the references to companies and external sites
>> 2) keep it as a working document (as we are doing) to prepare official "what's new" pages specific for each release branch
>> 3) add links to these release branch specific "what's new" pages from the README of the branch, from the OFBiz website etc..
>>
>>> If people want to try it, where should they find the download link? And the trunk demo, how do they find the download link here too?
>> The checkout of source code is not a download and I didn't move the instructions: they are still there and there is a prominent link from the main page.
>> Hans, if you can concentrate it is not that difficult to get:
>> 1) download page isfor "officially approved" releases only; the releases are served thru the ASF mirrors infrastructure that can *only* serve officially voted releases
>> 2) the "source code/svn" page is for persons interested in the living versions of svn trunk and branches; we have already good information for this and in fact very few people ask "where are the source files?"
>>
>>> So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the download page was agreed or not.
>> Ok, prepare your proposal and then start the vote thread.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
>>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>>> Right
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>>
>>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap
and some proposals
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Jacopo, i have a very simple question about a link which always worked:
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip
It was normally shown on this page:
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/snapshots/
now it does not work anymore.....
My point is that this link should be reasonable visible somewhere
preferably on the download page.
enter "ofbiz trunk current zip" in google and you will see it is used
pretty frequently (3030 times)
(it often also points to
http://build.ofbiz.org/builds/ofbiz-trunk-current.zip and other links)
If you simply not want do do what i asked for is fine. I now ran out of
steam finally. :-)
Regards,
Hans
On 04/08/2012 01:03 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 2:35 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> Jacopo,
>>
>> You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there from the start without trying to get a consensus.
> What are you talking about? I am shocked about how imprecise but this is blatant is ridiculous: what is the removal you are talking about? I simply added information about the new release schedule.
>
>> Sure, if everybody thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always very reliable and where problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and people selecting the download page should be aware of it.
>>
>> Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
>> http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
>> So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.
>>
> Hans, are you serious? Or you really don't understand? We have prominent links (2 of them) to the svn from the main page and we have a full page dedicated to svn instructions:
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>
> and no one would ever think to remove them: svn is essential information to get new contributions.
> The url to projects.apache.org (that *I* helped to have working on the DOAP file) is a good thing to have because it shows a summary of most relevant resources for OFBiz, including svn.
>
>> So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the latest version is following the latest internet developments.
>>
>> Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page?
> Do you mean the page that was created from a proposal I did a few years ago and that now you are using (undisturbed because of the lack of the community and PMC oversight on this) to add ads of your company and (unclear) links to your sites?
> Here is what I would do there:
> 1) remove all the references to companies and external sites
> 2) keep it as a working document (as we are doing) to prepare official "what's new" pages specific for each release branch
> 3) add links to these release branch specific "what's new" pages from the README of the branch, from the OFBiz website etc..
>
>> If people want to try it, where should they find the download link? And the trunk demo, how do they find the download link here too?
> The checkout of source code is not a download and I didn't move the instructions: they are still there and there is a prominent link from the main page.
> Hans, if you can concentrate it is not that difficult to get:
> 1) download page isfor "officially approved" releases only; the releases are served thru the ASF mirrors infrastructure that can *only* serve officially voted releases
> 2) the "source code/svn" page is for persons interested in the living versions of svn trunk and branches; we have already good information for this and in fact very few people ask "where are the source files?"
>
>> So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the download page was agreed or not.
> Ok, prepare your proposal and then start the vote thread.
>
> Jacopo
>
>> Hans
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
>>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>>> Right
>>>>
>>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>>
>>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Apr 8, 2012, at 2:35 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> Jacopo,
>
> You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there from the start without trying to get a consensus.
What are you talking about? I am shocked about how imprecise but this is blatant is ridiculous: what is the removal you are talking about? I simply added information about the new release schedule.
> Sure, if everybody thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always very reliable and where problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and people selecting the download page should be aware of it.
>
> Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
> http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
> So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.
>
Hans, are you serious? Or you really don't understand? We have prominent links (2 of them) to the svn from the main page and we have a full page dedicated to svn instructions:
http://ofbiz.apache.org/
https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
and no one would ever think to remove them: svn is essential information to get new contributions.
The url to projects.apache.org (that *I* helped to have working on the DOAP file) is a good thing to have because it shows a summary of most relevant resources for OFBiz, including svn.
> So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the latest version is following the latest internet developments.
>
> Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page?
Do you mean the page that was created from a proposal I did a few years ago and that now you are using (undisturbed because of the lack of the community and PMC oversight on this) to add ads of your company and (unclear) links to your sites?
Here is what I would do there:
1) remove all the references to companies and external sites
2) keep it as a working document (as we are doing) to prepare official "what's new" pages specific for each release branch
3) add links to these release branch specific "what's new" pages from the README of the branch, from the OFBiz website etc..
> If people want to try it, where should they find the download link? And the trunk demo, how do they find the download link here too?
The checkout of source code is not a download and I didn't move the instructions: they are still there and there is a prominent link from the main page.
Hans, if you can concentrate it is not that difficult to get:
1) download page isfor "officially approved" releases only; the releases are served thru the ASF mirrors infrastructure that can *only* serve officially voted releases
2) the "source code/svn" page is for persons interested in the living versions of svn trunk and branches; we have already good information for this and in fact very few people ask "where are the source files?"
>
> So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the download page was agreed or not.
Ok, prepare your proposal and then start the vote thread.
Jacopo
> Hans
>
>
>
> On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>> Right
>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>
>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Hans Bakker" <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> Jacopo,
>
> You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there from the start without trying to get a consensus. Sure, if
> everybody thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always
> very reliable and where problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and people selecting the download page
> should be aware of it.
>
> Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
> http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
> So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.
Wrong conclusion, this is rendered from our own doap_OFBiz.rdf (in website) so it has nothing to do with an Apache policies. It
still good to have it there. Those pages are not for end users, it's about projects, so fro developpers (no links to releases there)
> So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the
> latest version is following the latest internet developments.
>
> Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page? If people want to try it, where should they find the download link?
> And the trunk demo, how do they find the download link here too?
You mean https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Main+New+Features I guess? We could but a link to
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Source+Repository+and+Access from this page.
Anyway there is a lot to do regarding documentation, see for instance
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Documentation+Index what about "Apache OFBiz official documentation." (ie
http://localhost:8080/cmssite/cms/APACHE_OFBIZ_HTML), etc.
Jacques
> So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the download page was agreed or not.
> Hans
>
>
>
> On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us
>> to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past
>> just because we let him do this.
>> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation
>> and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement
>> accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>>> Right
>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>>
>>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check
>>> out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
>>> trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of
>>>>>>>>> the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is
>>>>>>>>>>> the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get
>>>>>>>>>>> real benefit.
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our
>>>>>>>>>> change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up...
>>>>>>>>>> so far...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap
and some proposals
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Jacopo,
You removed the trunk download from the download page which was there
from the start without trying to get a consensus. Sure, if everybody
thinks that is way to go, than that is it. However i think seeing the
the history of OFBiz where the trunk was always very reliable and where
problems were always fixed within hours, the trunk is very usable and
people selecting the download page should be aware of it.
Actually the official Apache pages list this link on the central site.
http://projects.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html
So it has nothing to do with Apache policies.
So why not on the OFBiz site? I think it should be there taking the
amount of changes that are applied to the trunk, showing the latest
version is following the latest internet developments.
Further what you are going to do with the 'what is new' page? If people
want to try it, where should they find the download link? And the trunk
demo, how do they find the download link here too?
So lets do a vote....and see if the removal of the link from the
download page was agreed or not.
Hans
On 04/07/2012 10:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
> Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>> Right
>>
>>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
>> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>>
>>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
>> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Hans Bakker"<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>>
>>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>>
>>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.
Jacopo
On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>
> Right
>
>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>
> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>
>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>
> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Hans Bakker" <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>
>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>
>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>
>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>
>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
Right
> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>and what is the text that you would like to add there?
<<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out
the trunk from OFBiz repository (Subversion)>>
Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
Jacques
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Hans Bakker" <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>
>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>
>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>
>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>
>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>
>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the
>>>>>>>> only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious) and what is the text that you would like to add there?
Jacopo
On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Hans Bakker" <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>
>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>
>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>
>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>
>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>
>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>
>>>> congratulations.
>>>>
>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
Jacques
From: "Hans Bakker" <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>
> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>
> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>
> Hans
>
> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Thank you Hans,
>>
>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>
>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>
>>> congratulations.
>>>
>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>
>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the
>>>>>> only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of
>>>>> way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap
and some proposals
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
But Apache does not prohibit it?
you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
Hans
On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Thank you Hans,
>
> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
> For the trunk all the information is here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>
> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>
>> congratulations.
>>
>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>
>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Thank you Hans,
the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
For the trunk all the information is here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
(but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
Jacopo
On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>
> congratulations.
>
> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>
>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap
and some proposals
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
This looks pretty good Jacopo,
congratulations.
However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
Regards,
Hans
On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>
> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>> Jacques
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
Jacopo
On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>
>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>
> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>
> Jacques
>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release
>> so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>
> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only
> trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way
(less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
Jacques
> Jacopo
>
>>
>> Jacques
>
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
Jacopo
>
> Jacques
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> We have recently discussed in a few threads some strategies for the definition of a release roadmap for OFBiz; I am summarizing
> here the main points (old and new) because there seems to be a general agreement around them and we should be ready to officialize
> them and then stick to this plan:
>
> * the release roadmap will be time-based rather than feature-based
> * every year a new release branch is created on April, generating a new Major Release Number in the format YY.MM (this is *not* a
> release)
> * from each active release branch we will release 2 releases every year (approx every 6 months); the names of the releases will be
> YY.MM.<aa> where aa is a two digits sequential number (01 is the first release, 02 the second etc..)
> * no more than 3 active release branches will be maintained simultaneously; for this reason we will close the oldest release
> branch every year sometimes before April (when the new one is created)
>
> An outstanding topic is the following:
> * do we still want to wait approx 1 year before releasing the first release of a branch?
>
> I don't have a strong preference but maybe a stabilization period of 6 months could be enough... but I don't know. In the plan
> below I am proposing a stabilization period of 10 months.
>
> As a result of the above rules, we will release approx 5 releases per year considering the following lifecycle of a release
> branch:
> * created in April
> * first year: stabilization; no new releases are created
> * second year: two releases 01 and 02
> * third year: two releases 03 and 04
> * fourth year: one release 05 and then the branch is closed
>
> If we name A (oldest), B and C (newest) the three active release branches, then we could stick to the following roadmap:
>
> C: new release on February and August
> B: new release on March and September
> A: new (last) release on April and then closed (when on April the new branch D is created)
For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so
often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
Jacques
> For example:
>
> 2015
> Jan
> Feb C1 (after mostly 10 months of stabilization)
> Mar B3
> Apr A5 (last); D is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug C2
> Sep B4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> 2016
> Jan
> Feb D1
> Mar C3
> Apr B5 (last); E is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug D2
> Sep C4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> 2016
> Jan
> Feb E1
> Mar D3
> Apr C5 (last); F is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug E2
> Sep D4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> etc...
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jacopo
>
>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Thank you Adrian,
I agree with you and should not have used the word "official" because it is misleading; let's simply say that there is consensus in the dev list to attempt to stick to this plan; of course we will review it over time and change it if required, or maybe simply ignore it if it will not prove to be useful over time.
Jacopo
On Feb 26, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> This is a good summary of the discussions.
>
> I'm not clear on what "officialize" means. I would prefer to have this release roadmap considered as a general outline, and not something cast in stone. My concern is that it will be taken too literally and future efforts to vary the release schedule will be met with resistance because they don't fit in with the "officialized" road map. In other words, I'm okay with the proposed roadmap, as long as there is some "wiggle room" to do things differently now and then should the need arise.
>
> -Adrian
>
>
> On 2/26/2012 3:29 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> We have recently discussed in a few threads some strategies for the definition of a release roadmap for OFBiz; I am summarizing here the main points (old and new) because there seems to be a general agreement around them and we should be ready to officialize them and then stick to this plan:
>>
>> * the release roadmap will be time-based rather than feature-based
>> * every year a new release branch is created on April, generating a new Major Release Number in the format YY.MM (this is *not* a release)
>> * from each active release branch we will release 2 releases every year (approx every 6 months); the names of the releases will be YY.MM.<aa> where aa is a two digits sequential number (01 is the first release, 02 the second etc..)
>> * no more than 3 active release branches will be maintained simultaneously; for this reason we will close the oldest release branch every year sometimes before April (when the new one is created)
>>
>> An outstanding topic is the following:
>> * do we still want to wait approx 1 year before releasing the first release of a branch?
>>
>> I don't have a strong preference but maybe a stabilization period of 6 months could be enough... but I don't know. In the plan below I am proposing a stabilization period of 10 months.
>>
>> As a result of the above rules, we will release approx 5 releases per year considering the following lifecycle of a release branch:
>> * created in April
>> * first year: stabilization; no new releases are created
>> * second year: two releases 01 and 02
>> * third year: two releases 03 and 04
>> * fourth year: one release 05 and then the branch is closed
>>
>> If we name A (oldest), B and C (newest) the three active release branches, then we could stick to the following roadmap:
>>
>> C: new release on February and August
>> B: new release on March and September
>> A: new (last) release on April and then closed (when on April the new branch D is created)
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> 2015
>> Jan
>> Feb C1 (after mostly 10 months of stabilization)
>> Mar B3
>> Apr A5 (last); D is created
>> May
>> Jun
>> Jul
>> Aug C2
>> Sep B4
>> Oct
>> Nov
>> Dec
>>
>> 2016
>> Jan
>> Feb D1
>> Mar C3
>> Apr B5 (last); E is created
>> May
>> Jun
>> Jul
>> Aug D2
>> Sep C4
>> Oct
>> Nov
>> Dec
>>
>> 2016
>> Jan
>> Feb E1
>> Mar D3
>> Apr C5 (last); F is created
>> May
>> Jun
>> Jul
>> Aug E2
>> Sep D4
>> Oct
>> Nov
>> Dec
>>
>> etc...
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap
and some proposals
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
This is a good summary of the discussions.
I'm not clear on what "officialize" means. I would prefer to have this
release roadmap considered as a general outline, and not something cast
in stone. My concern is that it will be taken too literally and future
efforts to vary the release schedule will be met with resistance because
they don't fit in with the "officialized" road map. In other words, I'm
okay with the proposed roadmap, as long as there is some "wiggle room"
to do things differently now and then should the need arise.
-Adrian
On 2/26/2012 3:29 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> We have recently discussed in a few threads some strategies for the definition of a release roadmap for OFBiz; I am summarizing here the main points (old and new) because there seems to be a general agreement around them and we should be ready to officialize them and then stick to this plan:
>
> * the release roadmap will be time-based rather than feature-based
> * every year a new release branch is created on April, generating a new Major Release Number in the format YY.MM (this is *not* a release)
> * from each active release branch we will release 2 releases every year (approx every 6 months); the names of the releases will be YY.MM.<aa> where aa is a two digits sequential number (01 is the first release, 02 the second etc..)
> * no more than 3 active release branches will be maintained simultaneously; for this reason we will close the oldest release branch every year sometimes before April (when the new one is created)
>
> An outstanding topic is the following:
> * do we still want to wait approx 1 year before releasing the first release of a branch?
>
> I don't have a strong preference but maybe a stabilization period of 6 months could be enough... but I don't know. In the plan below I am proposing a stabilization period of 10 months.
>
> As a result of the above rules, we will release approx 5 releases per year considering the following lifecycle of a release branch:
> * created in April
> * first year: stabilization; no new releases are created
> * second year: two releases 01 and 02
> * third year: two releases 03 and 04
> * fourth year: one release 05 and then the branch is closed
>
> If we name A (oldest), B and C (newest) the three active release branches, then we could stick to the following roadmap:
>
> C: new release on February and August
> B: new release on March and September
> A: new (last) release on April and then closed (when on April the new branch D is created)
>
> For example:
>
> 2015
> Jan
> Feb C1 (after mostly 10 months of stabilization)
> Mar B3
> Apr A5 (last); D is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug C2
> Sep B4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> 2016
> Jan
> Feb D1
> Mar C3
> Apr B5 (last); E is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug D2
> Sep C4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> 2016
> Jan
> Feb E1
> Mar D3
> Apr C5 (last); F is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug E2
> Sep D4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> etc...
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jacopo
>