Hi Raphaël and Everyone, Some great points and some offensive points too. Maybe you are the next David Hansson. I am sure when referring to Indian Monkeys it was in the best intention and not to offend, but I feel offended for some reason for my team and people. (people = person that works with me)
Are we concluding to a point or just placing our views forward. This email thread is so diluted now. Please, exactly what do we want to achieve here? Why is Fabian not responding...? thanks Savyn ________________________________________ From: openerp-community-leaders-bounces+savyn=publicus-solutions....@lists.launchpad.net [openerp-community-leaders-bounces+savyn=publicus-solutions....@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf Of Raphaël Valyi [rva...@gmail.com] Sent: 23 January 2010 18:14 To: Albert Cervera i Areny Cc: openerp-community-leaders@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Openerp-community-leaders] Simple things we need from Tiny for better bug planning/management On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Albert Cervera i Areny <alb...@nan-tic.com<mailto:alb...@nan-tic.com>> wrote: A Divendres, 22 de gener de 2010, Raphaël Valyi va escriure: > 2) I see that some of you more or less support the idea of the branch X I > defined: a stable branch synch'ed with 5.0 head with extra backports Tiny > doesn't want / can't assume. If only backports can get in, then that's > pretty easy: Tiny continue to be the authority telling indirectly what > could be in or not. > Now, given how slow is the merge process on trunk, unless Tiny can change > it, it doesn't sound it would solve the speed issue. > > Now, if we say we accept patches on that branch that are not trunk > backports, well, unfortunately, I doubt decision will be that easy. Yes I > suggest to make that branch eventually, but only if we can agree on > policies like voting or something like that. > I'd vote for a stable branch by now with bugfixes only. All rules can have exceptions, but those should have strong support: both in arguments and community members. Other communities are doing it without the need of a strict voting mechanism. After all, those that vote must also support the idea with code and compromise, so I think it's more a matter of discuss and accept other people's opinion. Sorry, but last counter-example of this is less than 10 minutes ago, Syleam vetoing again one more merge proposal: https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-commiter/openobject-addons/trunk-extra-addons/+merge/14302 Again, I can't understand that stance: that module is for country where Syleam doesn't even have a single customer, so why veto it without even explaining? (yes I think OpenERP should deal with account_anglo_saxon in a more integrated way, but meanwhile it's important to support those countries too, in any case rejecting without making for explanation effort is a bit of disrespect for the others work I think). BTW, we will soon ask a merge to have tax included supported out of the box for the Brazilian localization, I'm quite sure it will run into similar problems... I would like to believe it's as simple, I'm ok to to try with you and who like to be in, but unfortunately I'm not sure it's as simple. May be we can try to have such a branch and those who are too conservative will just not participate to it, not sure how that could work. Also as I said, yes there is the stable branch, but I'm personally more focused on 5.2 which is what will have to deal with until mid 2011, if it misses key things, it will be yet an other tough integration year. For instance we are in Brazil, we should make sure 5.2 is OK for Brazil. 5.0 will not do the job here for any company requiring the full accounting, so we need 5.2 to be better in several ways, it's a survival question for us. Guys the situation is very hot, I tried to contact Fabien again today without success. I know some of you are close to switching to Tryton. I totally admit Tryton has lot's of technical advantages over OpenERP (while OpenERP still have a few tech advantages too like computed fields + invalidation trigger Tryton dev said they would never support). But overall, I've several reasons to think Tryton is just was OpenERP was 3 years ago in term of efforts, I've no (actually less) reasons to believe they would do better in 3 years after the few creators get tired of working late tirelessly without money. So I know very much Tiny his totally flooded, I will ask them for some clear statements however to avoid a community balkanization that could weaken us all. BTW, about the commit on get for sequence here https://bugs.launchpad.net/openobject-server/+bug/462285, After I contacted Stephane Wirtel personally, he proposed to apply the community patch. Can they apply it? Also it's sad, Cedric Krier from Tryton told be that he already fixed that bug like more than one year ago before living Tiny. That's also for that we need to complete the test suite. Even with a low coverage, chances are we avoid most of such regressions. Regards, Raphaël Valyi http://www.akretion.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4799 (20100123) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community-leaders Post to : openerp-community-leaders@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community-leaders More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
