TT meeting minutes June 14th 2013

From ADempiere
Revision as of 22:00, 27 June 2013 by Tobi (Talk) (WORK IN PROGRESS)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This Wiki is read-only for reference purposes to avoid broken links.


General

  • Moderator: Victor Perez
  • Participants: Karsten Thiemann, Suman Ravuri, Teo Sarca, Tobias Schöneberg, Victor Perez
  • Date / Time: June 14th 2013 / 12:00h - 14:00h GMT

Agenda

  1. - Terms to revision of the code.
  2. - How to do distribution of work to revision of contributions
  3. - Answer to following questions:
    • How to document the analisys and review of code ?
    • What if the code does not satisfy?
    • Who will fix the code ( Technical Team , The contributor, the Release management) ?
    • What are the criteria to accepting technically a contribution?
  4. - Proposing a change in license best practices
  5. - Changing the "development" branch to "default


Terms to revision of the code

How to do distribution of work to revision of contributions

  • Each member the technical team voluntarily reviews the contributions he (she) wants and puts the name below the contribution on the contributions page (i.e. Release 380LTS)
  • The results are discussed in the TT meeting
  • Contributors can't review their own contributions on behalf of the TT

Answer to following questions

  • How to document the analisys and review of code ?
    => document it in the jira-tracker and add a link to the contrib wiki page
  • What if the code does not satisfy?
    => Problems by identified by the reviwing TT member are discussed at the meeting, the meeting then decides on further steps
  • Who will fix the code ( Technical Team , The contributor, the Release management) ?
    => in the end that's the contributors responsibility. Of course, TT members, RM or other volunteers may take over parts of it
  • What are the criteria to accepting technically a contribution?
    => the TT meeting will ty to find a consensus. If this doesn'T works, we can still think about format rules, like voting with a 2/3 majority

Proposing a change in license best practices

The proposal was accetped as proposed here: [1]

Changing the "development" branch to "default

  • It's unclear if the proposed change works with hg-flow
  • As an alternative, we might automatically merge the latest "development"-changes to "default"
  • Decision is postponed until forther research is done

Log

Following is the meeting log - time is in GMT +2

[14.06.2013 14:03:39] Victor Perez Juarez: Hi everybody
[14.06.2013 14:03:49] suman ravuri: Hi
[14.06.2013 14:03:52] Trifon Trifonov: hi Victor and everyone
[14.06.2013 14:03:54] Karsten Thiemann: hi
[14.06.2013 14:04:05] Tobias Schoeneberg: hi
[14.06.2013 14:05:29] Victor Perez Juarez: Do you know if Teo is here?
[14.06.2013 14:05:40] Teo metas: hi all
[14.06.2013 14:05:50] Victor Perez Juarez: haaaa , Hi Teo
[14.06.2013 14:06:14] Victor Perez Juarez: Ok then I think that we can start
[14.06.2013 14:06:28] Victor Perez Juarez: this propouse to Agenda
[14.06.2013 14:06:32] Victor Perez Juarez: Agenda
1.- Terms to revision of the code.
2.- How to do distribution of work to revision of contributions
3.- Answer to following question:
 How to document the analisys and review of code ?
 What if the code does not satisfy?
 Who will fix the code ( Technical  Team ,  The contributor, the  Release management) ?
 What are the criteria to accepting technically a contribution?
[14.06.2013 14:06:49] Victor Perez Juarez: And Tobi add some topics
[14.06.2013 14:07:05] Victor Perez Juarez: 4.-  "Proposing a change in license best practices"
[14.06.2013 14:07:37 | Removed 14:07:44] Tobias Schoeneberg: This message has been removed.
[14.06.2013 14:07:38] Victor Perez Juarez: 5.- Changing the "development" branch to "default",
[14.06.2013 14:07:49] Victor Perez Juarez: exacly
[14.06.2013 14:08:52] Victor Perez Juarez: then start with 1.- Terms to revision of the code.
[14.06.2013 14:09:13 | Edited 14:09:28] Tobias Schoeneberg: ok.. i'm wondering what you think of how i reviewed the Sales Management code
[14.06.2013 14:09:43] Victor Perez Juarez: So I understand that the revision code is based on http://www.adempiere.com/index.php/ADempiere_Best_Practices
[14.06.2013 14:10:45] Victor Perez Juarez: of course laso is necessary apply the standard java best practices
[14.06.2013 14:11:02] Karsten Thiemann: yes
[14.06.2013 14:11:34] Tobias Schoeneberg: did anyone already have time to make a review?
[14.06.2013 14:11:45] Tobias Schoeneberg: i would like to see how you do it
[14.06.2013 14:12:34] Victor Perez Juarez: ok here Tobi report some observation
[14.06.2013 14:12:42] Victor Perez Juarez: Missing License Headers
MChart
MChartDatasource
VChart
Missing JavaDoc
MChart
MChartDatasource
VChart
MOpportunity
Additional features
Salt: Would be great to have, but:
What's the status of that feature? Is it ready for use?
Where is announced/documented?
Chart: general feature (display type) that is used for "Sales Management"
https://adempiere.atlassian.net/browse/ADEMPIERE-143
Is it currently used anywhere else?
Is there documentation/tests for it?
XML migration scripts

AD_User is now also used as "Lead"
Adding C_Location_ID *and* C_BPartner_Location? => C_Location for the time befort a lead has been converted
adding a number of Lead related columns.
The problem I have here: the (core!) table gets bigger and bigger with columns that are only required for certain usage scenarions
proposal: Add entity type "org.adempiere.salesmgmt" and tag columns such as LeadSource with it. That we we will at least later on have a chance to extract those columns into dedicated tables (e.g. once we have a way of joining tables on the fly)
[14.06.2013 14:13:27] Victor Perez Juarez: fo example Missing License Headers Missing JavaDoc
[14.06.2013 14:13:42] Karsten Thiemann: I just looked at your review Tobi, I think it is good overview for the discussion in the TT
[14.06.2013 14:14:16] Victor Perez Juarez: So what happen if the contributor need complete this information
[14.06.2013 14:14:25] Victor Perez Juarez: ?
[14.06.2013 14:14:47] Victor Perez Juarez: we should complete this information or we need ask the contributor
[14.06.2013 14:14:55] Teo metas: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:14] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< So what happen if the contributor need complete this information
?i see 2 options:
[14.06.2013 14:15:11] Teo metas: * ask the initial contributor to provide info/fix issues
[14.06.2013 14:15:26] Teo metas: * find 3rd party who wants to take this responsability
[14.06.2013 14:15:35] Tobias Schoeneberg: or..
[14.06.2013 14:15:55] Karsten Thiemann: just change it (if minor stuff)
[14.06.2013 14:15:58] Tobias Schoeneberg: e.g. in case of missing license headers, the reviewer could add them himself
[14.06.2013 14:15:58] Victor Perez Juarez: may be the release managenet can help here
[14.06.2013 14:16:10] Tobias Schoeneberg: @Kartsten: exactly
[14.06.2013 14:16:25] Teo metas: i was thinking more to "AD_User is now also used as "Lead" ... in this case
[14.06.2013 14:16:40] Teo metas: just adding the license header is the smallest problem ;)
[14.06.2013 14:17:03] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:15] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< may be the release managenet can help herenot sure..depends on the exact job description of the RM, which i don't know
[14.06.2013 14:17:42] Tobias Schoeneberg: but at any rate, i think it should first be the contributors responsibility to somehow organise those changes
[14.06.2013 14:18:10] Karsten Thiemann: agree
[14.06.2013 14:18:23] Teo metas: agree
[14.06.2013 14:18:32] Victor Perez Juarez: agree
[14.06.2013 14:18:44] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:17] Tobias Schoeneberg: 

<<< not sure..depends on the exact job description of the RM, which i don't knowi mean, will ADeV pay the RM for that work?
[14.06.2013 14:19:20] Victor Perez Juarez: Ok then I'll talk to Steve
[14.06.2013 14:20:19] Tobias Schoeneberg: ok..while we are in the topic..wdyt about:
[14.06.2013 14:20:38] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:12] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< AD_User is now also used as "Lead"[Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:12] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< The problem I have here: the (core!) table gets bigger and bigger with columns that are only required for certain usage scenarions
proposal: Add entity type "org.adempiere.salesmgmt" and tag columns such as LeadSource with it. That we we will at least later on have a chance to extract those columns into dedicated tables (e.g. once we have a way of joining tables on the fly)
[14.06.2013 14:20:49] Tobias Schoeneberg: is it over the top to ask this?
[14.06.2013 14:21:33] Victor Perez Juarez: So we require to go fast, if the contributor sing the contributor agrement , then I think that the release management can help this subject if the contributor no answer
[14.06.2013 14:22:20] Victor Perez Juarez: So I think that is good that the contributor and developer sing some type de agrements to are sure that they accept that the contribution is include in adempiere
[14.06.2013 14:22:44] Victor Perez Juarez: I remember that Colin told about this subject
[14.06.2013 14:23:08] Karsten Thiemann: @Tobi: is it  easy to change this in the existing migration scripts?
[14.06.2013 14:23:55] Tobias Schoeneberg: yes, i think so..maybe with a manual QA afterwards.. add a ne entityType and replace 'D' with that type
[14.06.2013 14:24:02] Victor Perez Juarez: yes Karsten , we would change
[14.06.2013 14:24:28] Tobias Schoeneberg: i could volunteer to do it in this case (sales-mgmt), if adaxa doesn'T want to do it themselves
[14.06.2013 14:24:30] Karsten Thiemann: then I think it is a good idea
[14.06.2013 14:24:52] Victor Perez Juarez: so but we need some approach to this cases when any core table is add a new attributes or properties
[14.06.2013 14:25:45 | Edited 14:26:01] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:24] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< so but we need some approach to this cases when any core table is add a new attributes or propertiesi think it depends..e.g. for the "salt" column, imho it would be OK for have ENtityType='D'..
[14.06.2013 14:25:51] Victor Perez Juarez: unfortunately the adempiere model not support inheritance
[14.06.2013 14:26:27] Tobias Schoeneberg: yes
[14.06.2013 14:26:48] Victor Perez Juarez: becasue we should can extens inherit
[14.06.2013 14:27:17] Victor Perez Juarez: some as Class X_Lead  extend X_AD_User
[14.06.2013 14:27:31] Victor Perez Juarez: and separete here the new data to model
[14.06.2013 14:27:50] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:25] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< unfortunately the adempiere model not support inheritance...but if at least we tag field, columns etc. by "feature" using EntityType now, we can convert them later
[14.06.2013 14:28:44] Victor Perez Juarez: now in this case , I think that more tables may be more of a headache than a solution
[14.06.2013 14:29:24] Victor Perez Juarez: yes I know that Toe make some good thing to can extend the model
[14.06.2013 14:29:44] Victor Perez Juarez: I hope the here public this for next release ;)
[14.06.2013 14:30:19] Victor Perez Juarez: I am agree then the all sames management is migrate to other new entitytype
[14.06.2013 14:30:50] Victor Perez Juarez: this way we can know that this change come from a contribution
[14.06.2013 14:31:41] Victor Perez Juarez: so the create a new table for the lead I not shure , for example the web store use this table to receipt the contact when a new user is register from wstore
[14.06.2013 14:32:22] Victor Perez Juarez: it is because adempiere use ad user as model to the password validation infrestrcture
[14.06.2013 14:33:33] Tobias Schoeneberg: yes, agree.
[14.06.2013 14:33:35] Tobias Schoeneberg: did we now already deal with item 1. and 3.?
[14.06.2013 14:35:05] Victor Perez Juarez: ok we are with the 1
[14.06.2013 14:35:34] Victor Perez Juarez: so let me summary
[14.06.2013 14:35:37] Victor Perez Juarez: 1.- Terms to revision of the code.
[14.06.2013 14:36:08] Victor Perez Juarez: The term is base on ABP and java best practices, I think we are agree
[14.06.2013 14:37:38] Victor Perez Juarez: So if some not satisfies , then we ask the contributor , if the contributor no anwers then the release management can make the minor work
[14.06.2013 14:37:58] Victor Perez Juarez: as set the licences head and the document the java code
[14.06.2013 14:38:47] Victor Perez Juarez: Is necessary that we receipt some agreement document from contributor to are sure that here agree with the term of licences to adempiere code
[14.06.2013 14:38:51] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:37] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< document the java code(...in case this *is* a minor work in that particular case ;) )
[14.06.2013 14:39:00] Victor Perez Juarez: Do you agree?
[14.06.2013 14:39:23] Karsten Thiemann: agree
[14.06.2013 14:39:44] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:38] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< Is necessary that we receipt some agreement document from contributor to are sure that here agree with the term of licences to adempiere codeyes, agree (unless he/she remebered to add the license to the file, then it's unneceswsary)
[14.06.2013 14:40:06] Karsten Thiemann: ok
[14.06.2013 14:40:45] Victor Perez Juarez: So by common sense if the contribution is more valuable to put the license header in the classes I think I think it's worth finishing the job
[14.06.2013 14:41:59] Tobias Schoeneberg: agree
[14.06.2013 14:42:09] Victor Perez Juarez: Suman have you some objection?
[14.06.2013 14:42:45] Victor Perez Juarez: ok next topic
[14.06.2013 14:42:46] Victor Perez Juarez: 2.- How to do distribution of work to revision of contributions
[14.06.2013 14:44:02] Victor Perez Juarez: So we have 2 option, that each member the technical team voluntary review of its contribution tha he want
[14.06.2013 14:44:15] Victor Perez Juarez: or that all here view all contribution
[14.06.2013 14:44:48] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:44] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< or that all here view all contributionsuggestion: one should review and just present the results for discussion
[14.06.2013 14:44:53] Victor Perez Juarez: also I not sure if the revision is necessary delivery in technical team meeting
[14.06.2013 14:45:30] Karsten Thiemann: @Tobi: agree - I think that is much faster and the team just need to view the code if there are any problems
[14.06.2013 14:46:00] Tobias Schoeneberg: yes, i think everybody reviewing everything won't be practical
[14.06.2013 14:47:11] suman ravuri: @Victor, no obejections on Topic 1
[14.06.2013 14:47:46] suman ravuri: on topic 2, one of us take the owner ship of code review and put some definite timeline around it
[14.06.2013 14:47:49] Victor Perez Juarez: Ok then follow the same strategy that the functional team, put your name on the contributions as Tobi made
[14.06.2013 14:48:03] suman ravuri: and present problems to rest of the team
[14.06.2013 14:48:40] Victor Perez Juarez: ok agree
[14.06.2013 14:48:42] suman ravuri: + for Tobi
[14.06.2013 14:48:46] suman ravuri: +1
[14.06.2013 14:48:54] Victor Perez Juarez: +1
[14.06.2013 14:49:28] suman ravuri: can we start updating wiki now for technical reviews
[14.06.2013 14:49:31] Karsten Thiemann: +1
[14.06.2013 14:49:42] suman ravuri: as primary person
[14.06.2013 14:49:47] Victor Perez Juarez: yes
[14.06.2013 14:50:20] Victor Perez Juarez: perfect, I think that an contributor can not can review your selft code
[14.06.2013 14:50:37] Victor Perez Juarez: of cource he need fix the Tchnical team recomndation
[14.06.2013 14:50:41] suman ravuri: yes
[14.06.2013 14:50:43] suman ravuri: +1
[14.06.2013 14:50:52] Victor Perez Juarez: or explaint if is necessary
[14.06.2013 14:51:02] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:50] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< perfect, I think that an contributor can not can review your selft codeagree (+1)
[14.06.2013 14:51:15] Victor Perez Juarez: ok can continue with next topic
[14.06.2013 14:51:18] Victor Perez Juarez: ?
[14.06.2013 14:51:26] Victor Perez Juarez: 3.- Answer to following question:
 How to document the analisys and review of code ?
 What if the code does not satisfy?
 Who will fix the code ( Technical  Team ,  The contributor, the  Release management) ?
 What are the criteria to accepting technically a contribution?
[14.06.2013 14:52:43] Victor Perez Juarez: How to document the analisys and review of code ? I think should be in in the jira tracker
[14.06.2013 14:53:14] Victor Perez Juarez: I sure not if we need add the same in wiki
[14.06.2013 14:53:27] Victor Perez Juarez: is is necesario I think that is not issue
[14.06.2013 14:53:45] suman ravuri: Jira tracker looks relevant
[14.06.2013 14:54:04] suman ravuri: so that we can document comments
[14.06.2013 14:54:05 | Edited 14:54:23] Tobias Schoeneberg: does the jira tracker support simple markup like bullets and bold text?
[14.06.2013 14:54:06] Karsten Thiemann: so then insert a link to the tracker in the wiki page?
[14.06.2013 14:55:52] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:54] Karsten Thiemann: 

<<< so then insert a link to the tracker in the wiki page?agree
[14.06.2013 14:56:39 | Edited 14:56:50] Tobias Schoeneberg: but ihmo we can also see what works better. only the jira tracker needs either the review-documentation or at least an URL pointing to it
[14.06.2013 14:57:14] Victor Perez Juarez: I think not support
[14.06.2013 14:57:42] Victor Perez Juarez: >>does the jira tracker support simple markup like bullets and bold text?
[14.06.2013 14:57:56] Victor Perez Juarez: i try now and I not see any html editor
[14.06.2013 14:58:23] Tobias Schoeneberg: ok
[14.06.2013 14:58:40] Victor Perez Juarez: so the only support plain text
[14.06.2013 14:59:25] Victor Perez Juarez: Tobi need this feature to TT revision?
[14.06.2013 14:59:39] Victor Perez Juarez: or can use - or * , or 1.-
[14.06.2013 15:00:00] Tobias Schoeneberg: no, not at all all
[14.06.2013 15:00:16] Victor Perez Juarez: in the case the have not bold can use uppercase
[14.06.2013 15:00:30] Victor Perez Juarez: may be the summary in the wiki is ok
[14.06.2013 15:00:43 | Edited 15:00:52] Tobias Schoeneberg: just if it would have been supported, we might not have needed the wiki at all..
[14.06.2013 15:00:46] Victor Perez Juarez: but the detail of conversation should are all document in the jira tracker
[14.06.2013 15:01:14] Victor Perez Juarez: ok
[14.06.2013 15:01:26] Victor Perez Juarez: the summary :
[14.06.2013 15:02:14] Victor Perez Juarez: the any revision and comment this set in jira tracker , in the wiki only define an url reference , if is ncessary we can set an summary
[14.06.2013 15:02:29] Karsten Thiemann: agree
[14.06.2013 15:02:33] Victor Perez Juarez: agree
[14.06.2013 15:02:35] suman ravuri: +1
[14.06.2013 15:02:46] Victor Perez Juarez: What if the code does not satisfy?
 Who will fix the code ( Technical  Team ,  The contributor, the  Release management) ?
[14.06.2013 15:03:21] Victor Perez Juarez: as a contributor notify when a contribution is rejected :)
[14.06.2013 15:03:26] Karsten Thiemann: depends on the problem, major problems go back to the contributor
[14.06.2013 15:03:56] Karsten Thiemann: like - nice idea but bad design
[14.06.2013 15:04:07] Victor Perez Juarez: I guess we should give strong arguments for rejecting a contribution
[14.06.2013 15:04:38] Victor Perez Juarez: 1.- major problem
[14.06.2013 15:04:49] Victor Perez Juarez: 2.- duplicate functionality
[14.06.2013 15:05:24] Victor Perez Juarez: 3.- viola recurrentemente ABP
[14.06.2013 15:05:36] Tobias Schoeneberg: @victor: i generally aggree
[14.06.2013 15:05:40] Karsten Thiemann: isn't duplicated functionality the decision of the functional team?
[14.06.2013 15:06:04] Victor Perez Juarez: 4.- using incompatible libraries with GPL
[14.06.2013 15:06:27] Tobias Schoeneberg: and we shoud discuss it in the meeting first..e.g. the reviever could propose to reject the contrib and ask the TT to review the review
[14.06.2013 15:06:34] Victor Perez Juarez: @Karsten yes you is rigth , let change
[14.06.2013 15:07:25] Victor Perez Juarez: 2.- duplicate code or method that can be simial other solutions
[14.06.2013 15:07:31] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 15:06] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< 4.- using incompatible libraries with GPLgood point. even if the lib is already included in the trunk? (i would say yes, because we don't want even more code to use the lib)
[14.06.2013 15:08:12] Victor Perez Juarez: I not sure about the libs and GPL compatibilites
[14.06.2013 15:09:07] Victor Perez Juarez: I saw a lot the project and only incude the credits and the licences into the distribution and have an documento where say all libs and your licences
[14.06.2013 15:09:46] Karsten Thiemann: @Tobi: right
[14.06.2013 15:10:10] Karsten Thiemann: but this might bring us some headache
[14.06.2013 15:10:24] Victor Perez Juarez: I think we need deprecated and try move the code with other compatible licences
[14.06.2013 15:10:37] Victor Perez Juarez: we know that lib are in this case
[14.06.2013 15:12:11] Victor Perez Juarez: ok then we need make this work
[14.06.2013 15:12:22] Victor Perez Juarez: may be that RM can help about this
[14.06.2013 15:12:43] Victor Perez Juarez: Suman would you review about the incompatible libraries ?
[14.06.2013 15:13:00] Victor Perez Juarez:  Who will fix the code ( Technical  Team ,  The contributor, the  Release management) ?
 What are the criteria to accepting technically a contribution?
[14.06.2013 15:13:09] Victor Perez Juarez: >> Who will fix the code ( Technical  Team ,  The contributor, the  Release management) ?
[14.06.2013 15:13:33] Victor Perez Juarez: we agree that the RM can fix minor issues as code and comment to licences
[14.06.2013 15:13:39] Victor Perez Juarez: if the cotnributor no make
[14.06.2013 15:13:51] Victor Perez Juarez: >> What are the criteria to accepting technically a contribution?
[14.06.2013 15:14:21] Victor Perez Juarez: Need some voting strategy to accept an contribution  ?
[14.06.2013 15:15:46] Karsten Thiemann: If necessary we can vote in the tt, I would prefer a 2/3 majority but I don't think that we have a rule definition for that yet
[14.06.2013 15:16:18] Karsten Thiemann: I would discuss this if we run into the problem
[14.06.2013 15:17:01] Karsten Thiemann: I'm not sure if we can just give us voting rules or if the community/citizens would need to do that
[14.06.2013 15:17:48] Karsten Thiemann: so we should try to find an agreement for every contribution :)
[14.06.2013 15:19:02] Victor Perez Juarez: ok
[14.06.2013 15:20:16] Victor Perez Juarez: I think that in decision may be the FT need some strategy , So I informs this concern to FT
[14.06.2013 15:20:43] Victor Perez Juarez: next topic
[14.06.2013 15:20:44] Victor Perez Juarez: 4.-  "Proposing a change in license best practices"
[14.06.2013 15:21:10] Victor Perez Juarez: I reviewed the Tobi discusion in SF
[14.06.2013 15:21:50] Victor Perez Juarez: according understand only the original contributor can modify the license
[14.06.2013 15:21:59] Tobias Schoeneberg: yes
[14.06.2013 15:22:26] Victor Perez Juarez: but it is a shame that we can not use larger incompatibility libraries
[14.06.2013 15:22:30] Tobias Schoeneberg: i suggested to change the ADB, so that future contribs are licensed under "GPLv2 or later"
[14.06.2013 15:23:06] Karsten Thiemann: ok
[14.06.2013 15:24:33] Karsten Thiemann: But main problem is that we need to switch all classes to GPLv3 because you can't have a coexistance of v3 and v2 within the code base. But you are right, it could help with a v4 for example.
[14.06.2013 15:25:40 | Edited 15:25:43] Tobias Schoeneberg: yes, that's right, all current classes with GPLv2 would need to be changed..but at least new classes (from now on) wouldn'T need to be changed
[14.06.2013 15:25:44] Victor Perez Juarez: I know that of GPL2 is incompatible with GPL3
[14.06.2013 15:26:03] Victor Perez Juarez: then the unique way to some this case is rewrite all , jejejeje
[14.06.2013 15:26:47] Karsten Thiemann: @Tobi: yes, I agree. I't won't hurt to license under GPLv2 or later
[14.06.2013 15:27:00] Tobias Schoeneberg: maybe, maybe not...e.g. if we have better modularization, there might be gpl-3 parts runing indepentendly of gpl-2 parts
[14.06.2013 15:27:30] Victor Perez Juarez: another way is that link between the model is exposed as a service, then this could be used
[14.06.2013 15:27:34] Tobias Schoeneberg: e.g. there might be a web-ui, runnning in a dedicated process with gpl3 and zk6, and a core server under gpl-2
[14.06.2013 15:28:04] Tobias Schoeneberg: @victor: yes, i think that's what i mean, too :)
[14.06.2013 15:28:13] Victor Perez Juarez: haaaa
[14.06.2013 15:28:24] Victor Perez Juarez: then we have the anwers
[14.06.2013 15:28:34] Victor Perez Juarez: it was an issue that I find the long time
[14.06.2013 15:29:00] Victor Perez Juarez: what happen if I want make my new UI using GWT or Vaadin
[14.06.2013 15:29:25] Victor Perez Juarez: the the unique anwers that I can get is expone the ADempiere as an service
[14.06.2013 15:29:50] Victor Perez Juarez: is necessary create an layer that the business logic can run the server
[14.06.2013 15:30:23] Victor Perez Juarez: and the call this service can be some standard protocol as java serialitation , json , webservices
[14.06.2013 15:31:11] Tobias Schoeneberg: yes, and it generally would be good if many classes of adempiere, which *might* be usefull are already gplv2 or later..
[14.06.2013 15:31:28] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 15:26] Karsten Thiemann: 

<<< @Tobi: yes, I agree. I't won't hurt to license under GPLv2 or laterok, so do all aggree?
[14.06.2013 15:31:45] Tobias Schoeneberg: then i would change the ABP as proposed
[14.06.2013 15:32:25] Karsten Thiemann: I agree
[14.06.2013 15:32:28] Victor Perez Juarez: Tobut but is legal set [14/06/13 08:31:29] Tobias Schoeneberg: 
ok, so do all aggree?
[14/06/13 08:31:45] Tobias Schoeneberg: then i would change the ABP as proposed
[14.06.2013 15:32:59] Victor Perez Juarez: But is legal change  license under GPLv2 or later, is necessary the aprovationof JJ
[14.06.2013 15:33:16] Victor Perez Juarez: aprobation of JJ, or in this case of consosa
[14.06.2013 15:33:45] Tobias Schoeneberg: it's not legal to change existing code without asking the contributor...
this is only it's only about *new* code
[14.06.2013 15:33:46] Karsten Thiemann: @Victor - just for our (new) stuff
[14.06.2013 15:34:21] Victor Perez Juarez: ok
[14.06.2013 15:34:24] Victor Perez Juarez: What is interesting in this regard is how we do all this with the core, is that To is working hard to improve the code, based on an approach to interfaces, so in the future current adempiere classes should be just an implementation
[14.06.2013 15:34:34] Victor Perez Juarez: What is interesting in this regard is how we do all this with the core, is that Teo is working hard to improve the code, based on an approach to interfaces, so in the future current adempiere classes should be just an implementation
[14.06.2013 15:35:57] Tobias Schoeneberg: yes, i saw it, it's really nice :)
[14.06.2013 15:37:13 | Edited 15:37:22] Tobias Schoeneberg: so you aggre with (citing from the forum post)
propose to change items 37, 46 and 72.

For item 37 I propose a new text:
"Sponsored development musts be released under "GPL2 or later" (i.e. with the same license from Adempiere)

For item 46 I propose to change the code teplate by replacing
"terms version 2 of the GNU General Public License"
with
"terms version 2 or later of the GNU General Public License"

For item 72 I propose a new text:
"License must be "GPLv2 or later"

?
[14.06.2013 15:37:34] Karsten Thiemann: I agree
[14.06.2013 15:37:40] Victor Perez Juarez: I'm not sure if you can have different implementations in different licenses, not if I can use a container like spring to inject a implentación with another license, if possible this may be the way
[14.06.2013 15:38:26] Tobias Schoeneberg: victor, we can'T run gpl-v2 code and gplv3 code in the same java-process...
[14.06.2013 15:40:03] Victor Perez Juarez: for example what happen if I want create  my test in scala and I want release my test under apache 2
[14.06.2013 15:40:07] Victor Perez Juarez: is ilegal
[14.06.2013 15:40:09] Victor Perez Juarez: ?
[14.06.2013 15:41:26] Tobias Schoeneberg: if the test only covers/tests adempiere-code with licence "GPLv2 or later" then it's legal
[14.06.2013 15:41:53] Tobias Schoeneberg: if the test also covers code with licence "GPLv2" then it's not legal, but
[14.06.2013 15:42:33] Tobias Schoeneberg: then you could still release the tests and the Gpl 2code under test in two packages and leave it to the user to combine them
[14.06.2013 15:42:46] Victor Perez Juarez: jjejejej is consude becase the line is very thin
[14.06.2013 15:43:48] Tobias Schoeneberg: ..but we really loose nothing then we insert the "or later" when adding *new* code
[14.06.2013 15:44:12] Victor Perez Juarez: for example in my idea í have a new stuff rewrite in scala , for example the Persistence , DAO , service layer but use the Database dictionary
[14.06.2013 15:44:28] Victor Perez Juarez: and release all under apache 2
[14.06.2013 15:44:39] Victor Perez Juarez: inonly use the database structure
[14.06.2013 15:45:19] Victor Perez Juarez: but I want make my test to testing the old implementation in java and the scala
[14.06.2013 15:45:25] Victor Perez Juarez: it si ilegal
[14.06.2013 15:45:57] Victor Perez Juarez: of course only an assumption ;)
[14.06.2013 15:47:42] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 15:45] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< it si ilegali think it's not a real problem :) if you want we can talk about it later
[14.06.2013 15:47:59] Victor Perez Juarez: ok
[14.06.2013 15:48:16] Karsten Thiemann: good
[14.06.2013 15:48:59] Victor Perez Juarez: I am agree in change "GPLv2 or later" if is legal
[14.06.2013 15:49:08] Tobias Schoeneberg: ok, great :)
[14.06.2013 15:49:25] Victor Perez Juarez: +1 "GPLv2 or later" if is legal
[14.06.2013 15:50:06] Tobias Schoeneberg: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC4
[14.06.2013 15:50:09] Victor Perez Juarez: +1 change the license for new class to "GPLv2 or later" if is legal
[14.06.2013 15:50:18] Tobias Schoeneberg: search for "later" ;)
[14.06.2013 15:50:38] Victor Perez Juarez: ok last topic
[14.06.2013 15:51:07] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 14:07] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< 5.- Changing the "development" branch to "default",
[14.06.2013 15:51:16] Tobias Schoeneberg: wdyt?
[14.06.2013 15:51:25] Victor Perez Juarez: 5.- Changing the "development" branch to "default",
[14.06.2013 15:51:53] Victor Perez Juarez: I have not the isuee , but no am sure if the hg flow work with default
[14.06.2013 15:52:35] Victor Perez Juarez: I think that is the only possible problem
[14.06.2013 15:52:46] Victor Perez Juarez: whe you release a feature
[14.06.2013 15:52:48 | Edited 15:53:01] Tobias Schoeneberg: ok (i'm sure it will work), but i can do some research
[14.06.2013 15:53:08] Victor Perez Juarez: hg flow merge automaticaly the feature with development
[14.06.2013 15:53:16] Victor Perez Juarez: and close the feature
[14.06.2013 15:53:28] Victor Perez Juarez: in a single step
[14.06.2013 15:53:48] Tobias Schoeneberg: i can check locally if it also works with "default" branch and report to you
[14.06.2013 15:53:55] Tobias Schoeneberg: btw, i need to go soon
[14.06.2013 15:54:02 | Edited 15:54:17] Karsten Thiemann: me too
[14.06.2013 15:54:13] Victor Perez Juarez: https://bitbucket.org/yinwm/hgflow/wiki/UserManual
[14.06.2013 15:54:22] Tobias Schoeneberg: maybe we can postpone the decision to the next meeting and i check if it works until then?
[14.06.2013 15:54:38] Victor Perez Juarez: but I can that the solution is create un robot to make this in acutomatic
[14.06.2013 15:54:48] Victor Perez Juarez: only to sf can show the code
[14.06.2013 15:55:26] Victor Perez Juarez: but if not I can live without sf browse
[14.06.2013 15:55:38] Victor Perez Juarez: as default
[14.06.2013 15:55:44] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 15:54] Victor Perez Juarez: 

<<< but I can that the solution is create un robot to make this in acutomatic
only to sf can show the codeyes, that might also be a solution
[14.06.2013 15:55:45] Victor Perez Juarez: yes
[14.06.2013 15:56:10] Victor Perez Juarez: ok the we finish the meeting
[14.06.2013 15:56:15] Tobias Schoeneberg: ok
[14.06.2013 15:56:25] Victor Perez Juarez: when propouse the next meeting?
[14.06.2013 15:56:28] Tobias Schoeneberg: who can write the minutes?
[14.06.2013 15:56:41] Tobias Schoeneberg: next meeting->next friday?
[14.06.2013 15:56:53] Karsten Thiemann: next friday, same time
[14.06.2013 15:56:56] Victor Perez Juarez: ok for me
[14.06.2013 15:57:16] Victor Perez Juarez: I can write Tobi
[14.06.2013 15:57:27] Tobias Schoeneberg: ok, thanks.
[14.06.2013 15:57:32] Victor Perez Juarez: only an question
[14.06.2013 15:57:54] Victor Perez Juarez: you merge feature sales into the develiopmnet  ?
[14.06.2013 15:58:05] Victor Perez Juarez: do you merge feature sales into the develiopmnet  ?
[14.06.2013 15:58:50] Victor Perez Juarez: if is yes , do you use hg flow feature finish ?
[14.06.2013 15:58:59] Karsten Thiemann: Isn't that the work of the release manager?
[14.06.2013 15:59:00] Tobias Schoeneberg: i would like to change the EntityType first, and add/change license string, and ask adaxa about the salt
[14.06.2013 15:59:13] Victor Perez Juarez: haaa ok
[14.06.2013 15:59:14] Tobias Schoeneberg: [Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 15:58] Karsten Thiemann: 

<<< Isn't that the work of the release manager?yes, i also think so
[14.06.2013 15:59:47] Karsten Thiemann: ok - I got to go. See you next friday
[14.06.2013 15:59:54] Tobias Schoeneberg: cu
[14.06.2013 15:59:59] Victor Perez Juarez: ok cu
[14.06.2013 16:00:03] Tobias Schoeneberg: i also need to go to a meeting
[14.06.2013 16:00:09] Tobias Schoeneberg: bye all