[Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello. In the las days, we are seeing a really big increase in the proposal to include new branchs/modules on the Community / OCA branches. It is one of the best moments of the community, we must continue in this way. BTW, when thing start to become big, we need to act fast, then, I propose that

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Le 23/10/2013 01:03, Nhomar Hernández a écrit : > Hello. Hello, > > In the las days, we are seeing a really big increase in the proposal > to include new branchs/modules on the Community / OCA branches. > > It is one of the best moments of the community, we must continue in > this way. I'm happy to

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hi, Nhomar, indeed, this is a very welcome feature to enhance the community, but in these momments, I see two problems: - *Lack of resources*, we are still few contributing and this is one more task that prevents to complete what I see now the main target: complete "base" functionality ar

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Friends. Just to be clear. My Proposal is not for Today or Tomorrow. Today the (+1) system works, and we are in plan and organization process. I just want put over the table this card, to be prepared may be in 1 year or 2, this degree of maturity in the Python Foundation took a lot of time. To

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Quentin THEURET wrote: > Le 23/10/2013 01:03, Nhomar Hernández a écrit : > > Hello. > Hello, > > > > In the las days, we are seeing a really big increase in the proposal > > to include new branchs/modules on the Community / OCA branches. > > > > It is one of the

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

IMHO, the emergency for OCB branches is to fix bugs that have been introduced in these branches. I am not sure if it's tracking the right branches, but it looks like the OCB branches are red on runbot: http://runbot.openerp.com/ocb.html Also, I would suggest every contribution to follow the run

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hi, Fabien, thanks for pointing out the problems with runbot. I'm not sure who added this branch and if they are correct, and I'm not very familiar with runbot, but I can check it. Let's wait if someone know about. Is there any documentation for runbot, naming conventions and so on? Regards. 20

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hi again, Fabien, Thank you very much for the explanation, I will check it as soon as possible to try to see where are the problems. Runbot is one of my pendings ;) Regards. 2013/10/24 Fabien Pinckaers > > > On 10/24/2013 06:43 PM, Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero wrote: > > Hi, Fabien, thanks for p

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello, Don't know where runbot is taking its branches from, but the ocb branches are completely outdated. I should have been a warning that both the current level tested, and the tests of 20 days ago are testing the same revisions. For instance tested ocb server revno is 5109, while current revn

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/24/2013 06:43 PM, Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero wrote: > Hi, Fabien, thanks for pointing out the problems with runbot. I'm not > sure who added this branch and if they are correct, and I'm not very > familiar with runbot, but I can check it. Let's wait if someone know about. > > Is there any d

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hi, Ronald, although you are right about how outdated branches are, it doesn't mean that the tests are correct or not, as like Fabien says, they don't merge nothing that breaks tests, so something we have introduced has make this goes red, maybe even one year ago (well, not so far, because OCB bran

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/24/2013 06:36 PM, Fabien Pinckaers wrote: IMHO, the emergency for OCB branches is to fix bugs that have been introduced in these branches. I am not sure if it's tracking the right branches, but it looks like the OCB branches are red on runbot: http://runbot.openerp.com/ocb.html Thank

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/24/2013 07:22 PM, Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero wrote: Hi, Ronald, although you are right about how outdated branches are, it doesn't mean that the tests are correct or not, as like Fabien says, they don't merge nothing that breaks tests, so something we have introduced has make this goes red

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello, just as a reminder, I'm testing the installation of the main OpenERP modules (who wants a lunch module anyway?) after every OCB commits on Travis-CI: https://travis-ci.org/akretion/openerp-addons-ci/builds Since the 2 months or so the tracking is in place it has always been green. If not we

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello, I had a look on the trace from runbot on ocb branches. I'm afraid the issue is still there. It seems the module survey was creating the error. Here is a bug report to investigate it: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ocb-addons/+bug/1244584 @Raphael does your builds on Travis install all modul

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello, > Of course Runbot can be used too. The main advantage of Travis is that > it's zero hassle for anybody to set their own tracking branches with all > the testing he wants without having to ask anybody's permission (Github > really rocks at implementing decentralization of open source). It a

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

> Don't know where runbot is taking its branches from, but the ocb > branches are completely outdated. > > I should have been a warning that both the current level tested, and the > tests of 20 days ago are testing the same revisions. > > For instance tested ocb server revno is 5109, while curre

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/24/2013 07:41 PM, Stefan Rijnhart wrote: > On 10/24/2013 06:36 PM, Fabien Pinckaers wrote: >> IMHO, the emergency for OCB branches is to fix bugs that have been >> introduced in these branches. >> >> I am not sure if it's tracking the right branches, but it looks like the >> OCB branches ar

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hi, Fabien, Indeed I also prefer to use homogeneus platforms for all the project, but there's one problem: runbot is not available openly for everyone, only for partners. This means an entry barrier for anyone who wants to use official platforms, so I don't blame anybody for searching for open alt

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hi Pedro, As I know, everyone can download runbot and install it locally, on your own server. "The complete source code for this Runbot is available on Launchpad: launchpad.net/openerp-tools (in the openerp-runbot sub-directory), where you can also fill bug reports or propose your patches." But

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Yannick Vaucher < yannick.vauc...@camptocamp.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I had a look on the trace from runbot on ocb branches. > > I'm afraid the issue is still there. > > It seems the module survey was creating the error. > > Here is a bug report to investigate it:

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 2013-10-25 14:30, Fabien Pinckaers wrote: Ok, I checked with Olivier and Christophe; It looks like OCB branches have been wrongly registered in our runbot by a partner. IMHO, the community should organize OCB branches in another way: - a dedicated ~ocb team - but uses official projects

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hi, Денис (copy-pasted, sorry if it's not your name, but I don't know cyrillic), I know too about runbot availability to run locally downloading source code, but the added value of runbot is to have it on-line, as Travis CI does. Anyway, I also see more interesting Launchpad / GitHub debate. @Fabi

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/25/2013 04:21 PM, Olivier Dony wrote: Only a few obstacles remain before this can become a reality: 1/ The OCB branches would need to be relocated under the official projects 2/ The OCB branch management process needs to be adapted accordingly 3/ Compliance with the OpenERP stable policy

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

2013/10/25 Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero > I know too about runbot availability to run locally downloading source > code, but the added value of runbot is to have it on-line, as Travis CI > does. Anyway, I also see more interesting Launchpad / GitHub debate. > @Fabien, have you talked about the switc

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Le 25/10/2013 16:44, Stefan a écrit : My personal gripe is with [3]. I think having an 'unstable' series that does allow the occasional new field to percolate through is a major attraction to OCB. It must be the reason that I remember our conversation at the community days slightly differently

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Nhomar Hernández wrote: > > 2013/10/25 Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero > >> I know too about runbot availability to run locally downloading source >> code, but the added value of runbot is to have it on-line, as Travis CI >> does. Anyway, I also see more interesting La

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Nhomar Hernández wrote: > > 2013/10/25 Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero > >> I know too about runbot availability to run locally downloading source >> code, but the added value of runbot is to have it on-line, as Travis CI >> does. Anyway, I also see more interesting L

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

2013/10/25 Ovnicraft > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Nhomar Hernández wrote: > >> >> 2013/10/25 Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero >> >>> I know too about runbot availability to run locally downloading source >>> code, but the added value of runbot is to have it on-line, as Travis CI >>> does. A

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/25/2013 05:07 PM, "Lionel Sausin, de la part de l'équipe informatique Numérigraphe" wrote: It'd be much easier for everyone if you maintain 2 sets of branches : - a community-maintained branch complying with the bugfix-only policy, that OpenERP can merge into the core - the "OCB" branches

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/25/2013 05:26 PM, Stefan wrote: On 10/25/2013 05:07 PM, "Lionel Sausin, de la part de l'équipe informatique Numérigraphe" wrote: It'd be much easier for everyone if you maintain 2 sets of branches : - a community-maintained branch complying with the bugfix-only policy, that OpenERP can m

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

2013/10/25 Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero > Hi, Olivier, > > The reasons you give are strong enough to balance the situation to > Launchpad, so for me the debate is closed in this topic. > > Thanks for the explanation. Jejeje Closed about CVS (which is off-topic in this thread) I was asking for Impr

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hi, Olivier, The reasons you give are strong enough to balance the situation to Launchpad, so for me the debate is closed in this topic. Thanks for the explanation. Regards. 2013/10/25 Olivier Dony > On 2013-10-25 16:45, Nhomar Hernández wrote: > >> >> 2013/10/25 Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero >

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Reason to be for OCB branches is that official ones are not "community friendly"... * Lots of bugs with even corresponding MPs that are rejected and/or ignored... * Changes needed to really fix a bug that are not accepted because of the "no change to model", but not fixing is worse... *

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 2013-10-25 16:45, Nhomar Hernández wrote: 2013/10/25 Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero mailto:pedro.ba...@gmail.com>> I know too about runbot availability to run locally downloading source code, but the added value of runbot is to have it on-line, as Travis CI does. Anyway, I also see mo

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 2013-10-25 16:44, Stefan wrote: On 10/25/2013 04:21 PM, Olivier Dony wrote: Only a few obstacles remain before this can become a reality: 1/ The OCB branches would need to be relocated under the official projects 2/ The OCB branch management process needs to be adapted accordingly 3/ Complia

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 2013-10-25 17:43, Mario Arias wrote: Reason to be for OCB branches is that official ones are not "community friendly"... * Lots of bugs with even corresponding MPs that are rejected and/or ignored... * Changes needed to really fix a bug that are not accepted because of the "no change

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Personally I think that if the official branches are made less strict, in the sense that they accept database changes needed to resolve bugs, then there should be no problem to proceed along the lines proposed by Olivier. I think most people who contribute features and fixes to the stable branches

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello. I really prefer a tested policy than an "experimental" option. I want sleep better than pray not brake something everytime we make some autopull. I am agreed with Oliver too! change schema bring a lot of problems, and sometimes it is better dedicate a little extra time to solve without ch

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello, I agree with the fact that OCB merging and reviewing must be the less painful as possible and having simple process is mandatory. The flexibility of OCB and a certain form of freedom driven by community is also something to preserve. Maybe community (or OCA) can provide his own runbot i

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hi Olivier, Just one personal sample, there are plenty if you take a look under "wish-list"... https://bugs.launchpad.net/openobject-addons/+bug/1132963 I reported a problem with payroll, that makes real use impossible because it fails to provide correct contracts for employees. It is just

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Ronald Portier wrote: > Personally I think that if the official branches are made less strict, > in the sense that they accept database changes needed to resolve bugs, > then there should be no problem to proceed along the lines proposed by > Olivier. > > I think

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello I believe some partner have developped gateways between github and launchpad They can work internally with github and have a quite good integration with LP Cordialement INVITU Computer & Network E

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

> > Indeed I also prefer to use homogeneus platforms for all the project, but > there's one problem: runbot is not available openly for everyone, only for > partners. This means an entry barrier for anyone who wants to use official > platforms Once ocb team is registered, everyone's branch is

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/25/2013 08:16 PM, Raphael Valyi wrote: Hello Ronald, this is my vision too because with 2 branches it will be hard to ensure both have enough critical mass of "Human Continous Integration" which is sadly how most of the important bugs are found today. Hi, to put this discussion in p

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 2013-10-25 18:57, Olivier Dony wrote: On 2013-10-25 17:43, Mario Arias wrote: Reason to be for OCB branches is that official ones are not "community friendly"... * Lots of bugs with even corresponding MPs that are rejected and/or ignored... * Changes needed to really fix a bug that are

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 2013-10-26 14:36, Ferdinand wrote: One other thing comes into my mind. OpenERP needs a release cycle with a * feature freeze - example 7.9 * testing of functionality and migration - 1-2 month o OpenERP internal o Partners - migration of key accounts * release 8. many of the prob

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Ferdinand, This is not an issue anymore. The new realease policy fixes this. We don't do anymore cycles like: develop for 9 months, fix during 3 months, then release. Now, the trunk is stable. Every new feature in trunk goes to minimum 3 code review before being merged in trunk (the developer,

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/27/2013 08:19 AM, Fabien Pinckaers wrote: Ferdinand, This is not an issue anymore. The new realease policy fixes this. We don't do anymore cycles like: develop for 9 months, fix during 3 months, then release. Now, the trunk is stable. Every new feature in trunk goes to minimum 3 code

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

> As per slide 28 of > http://www.slideshare.net/openobject/openerp-2012-openerp-strategy, the same > was supposed to be true for the 7.0 release. Yes, we wanted to put the saas on trunk before v7 but we did not succeed. We put a lot of efforts testing an bugfixing v7 before launch, but we did

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

I'm trying to understand how is it going to work on future but I can not yet. Is there any place, slides or documentation about it? Some of my concerns and doubts would be: - new functionality will be included on stable version each month? - there could be db changes on existing modules to make it

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello Team, ==Offtopic===This email is for matter RUNBOT: FYI I generate the OCB instance in http://runbot.openerp.com/ocb.html With next branches: SERVER: ~ocb/ocb-server/7.0 ADDONS: ~ocb/ocb-addons/7.0 WEB: ~ocb/ocb-web/7.0 And I have reported next bug with the result https://bugs.launchpad.net

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Ana, There are no change in the way we manage stable branches. The only changes are in the way we manage the trunk branch. As you use the stable branch, nothing change for you. The only visible difference is that v8 will be much stable the day we will release it. On 27 Oct 2013, at 22:32, Ana

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Ok. I was misunderstandig the point. It's clear now. Thank you very much. Ana El 28/10/2013 06:35, "Fabien Pinckaers" escribió: > Ana, > > There are no change in the way we manage stable branches. The only changes > are in the way we manage the trunk branch. > > As you use the stable branch, noth

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/27/2013 09:59 PM, Fabien Pinckaers wrote: As per slide 28 of http://www.slideshare.net/openobject/openerp-2012-openerp-strategy, the same was supposed to be true for the 7.0 release. Yes, we wanted to put the saas on trunk before v7 but we did not succeed. Hi Fabien, thank you for cla

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/28/2013 12:26 AM, Moises Lopez wrote: FYI I generate the OCB instance in With next branches: SERVER: ~ocb/ocb-server/7.0 ADDONS: ~ocb/ocb-addons/7.0 WEB: ~ocb/ocb-web/7.0 Hi Moises Lopez, thank you for putting up the ocb-branches on the OpenERP buil

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello Stefan, I make a change in runbot http://testrunbot.vauxoo.com/ocb.html for generate a new builds with push changes. (ocb like sticky branch) Other change, I add all branch of active Merge Proposal to OCB. You can see log of you merge proposal 70-ocb--addons-mp-192679 On 10/28/2013 12:26 A

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/28/2013 09:47 AM, Moises Lopez wrote: Hello Stefan, I make a change in runbot http://testrunbot.vauxoo.com/ocb.html for generate a new builds with push changes. (ocb like sticky branch) Other change, I add all branch of active Merge Proposal to OCB. You can see log of you merge proposal 7

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

> OK, thanks. We'll have to see if these builds suffer from the same > problem of not being able to update as well. Don't forget that, even if it works, the advantage of runbot is to test branches BEFORE they are merged in the ocb branch. And this is the main reason why you need to register a te

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/28/2013 10:58 AM, Fabien Pinckaers wrote: OK, thanks. We'll have to see if these builds suffer from the same problem of not being able to update as well. Don't forget that, even if it works, the advantage of runbot is to test branches BEFORE they are merged in the ocb branch. Agreed, but

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hi, to put this discussion in perspective, let me give an overview of which schema changes have been put through in ocb-addons/7.0 so far: - An 'active' field was added to account.journal - A sequence field was added to account.tax - A link was created from crm.phonecall.report to crm.lead J

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

>> to put this discussion in perspective, let me give an overview of >> which schema changes have been put through in ocb-addons/7.0 so far: >> >> - An 'active' field was added to account.journal >> - A sequence field was added to account.tax >> - A link was created from crm.phonecall.report to cr

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/28/2013 12:12 PM, Fabien Pinckaers wrote: - A sequence field was added to account.tax Hi Fabien, Sorry, this should be: 'A sequence field was added to account.tax.code.template analogous to the new sequence field on account.tax.code in 7.0' - adding sequence on account.tax.code.tem

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 28/10/2013 12:12, Fabien Pinckaers wrote: >>> to put this discussion in perspective, let me give an overview of >>> which schema changes have been put through in ocb-addons/7.0 so far: >>> >>> - An 'active' field was added to account.journal >>> - A sequence field was added to account.tax >>> -

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/28/2013 12:33 PM, Stefan wrote: My bug report on it has been ignored since it was created 6,5 months ago: https://bugs.launchpad.net/openobject-addons/+bug/1168948 Update on this: apparently, status was set to 'fix committed' on openobject-addons, and 'new' only on ocb-addons. Apolog

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/28/2013 01:12 PM, Stefan wrote: > Fabien, in line with Alexandre Fayolle's response, could you please > review my proposal and indicate if you prefer having tax codes ordered > by 'order' again, instead of by sequence? I can adapt my proposal > accordingly. > > https://code.launchpad.net/~

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello, > - active field on account.journal: IMHO it's a serious bug introduced > in ocb branch; if you desactivate a journal containing journal items > you create inconsistencies in all your legal reports. --> We will > not merge this as it's against the rule defined for financial >

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Dear all, A bit late, but better late than never... I completly share Stefan's vision here. I'm also inline with what suggested Olivier during the community days ans I'm also happy to see this "Respawning" ! 1/ The OCB branches would need to be relocated under the official projects 2/ The OCB bra

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 2013-10-27 09:57, Stefan Rijnhart wrote: On 10/27/2013 08:19 AM, Fabien Pinckaers wrote: Ferdinand, This is not an issue anymore. The new realease policy fixes this. We don't do anymore cycles like: develop for 9 months, fix during 3 months, then release. Now, the trunk is stable. Every new

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

@Fabien, You told us """ And this is the main reason why you need to register a *team*, and not a branch. This allows to control feature-branches are green before merging them. ... """ We generate branches with info from sticky branches. No "team" configuration. I send you a new document with

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Moises Lopez wrote: > @Fabien, > > You told us > """ > > And this is the main reason why you need to register a *team*, and not a > branch. This allows to control feature-branches are green before merging > them. > ... > """ > We generate branches with info f

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Hello Oliver, Current openerp-runbot there is hard-code for sticky branches. I modified this file for explain this point: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AotaKTc4rOjsdGYyaU5IbHVJbHFkY0thNEVqa2hwckE&usp=sharing Can you see row 9 of this spreadsheet? El oct 28, 2013 11:21 AM, "Olivie

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Moises Lopez wrote: > Hello Oliver, > > Current openerp-runbot there is hard-code for sticky branches. > Actually, this can be configured dynamically too. But first the team config must be clean. > I modified this file for explain this point: > > > https://docs

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Joël Grand-Guillaume < joel.grandguilla...@camptocamp.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > A bit late, but better late than never... I completly share Stefan's > vision here. I'm also inline with what suggested Olivier during the > community days ans I'm also happy to see t

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

2013/10/28 Olivier Dony > Yes I saw the spreadsheet and I had a quick look at your patches to runbot > too, but I don't think we'll want to merge that. We would prefer if not > everyone is allowed to setup sticky branches, as people are very good at > misusing the tools you give them, and the cas

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Oliver, El oct 28, 2013 12:11 PM, "Olivier Dony" escribió: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Moises Lopez wrote: >> >> Hello Oliver, >> >> Current openerp-runbot there is hard-code for sticky branches. > > Actually, this can be configured dynamically too. But first the team config must be cle

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/28/2013 09:29 PM, Stefan Rijnhart wrote: That means that a two way granularity on branch level (splitting up schema changers from the rest) may good enough to base a semi-automated feedback process on. Oh, I mean may *not be* good enough __

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/28/2013 08:30 PM, Olivier Dony wrote: So it's very simple: if the OCB contributors find it useful to have a faster commit path to the stable branches, then they might find that respecting the stable policy somehow is worth it. It's an easy way to give more power to the community. Hi

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

2013/10/28 Stefan Rijnhart > Sorry to sound a bit grumpy what with all your good spirits and initiative > in this matter! I am genuinly interested in what you, and others, think of > these obstacles. > > > So how do you plan to handle this? What will become of your 7.0 >> divergences once 8.0 is

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

> For option 3) I'm also feeling that community need this freedom of changing > such thing if members agreed on that. Currently very few as Stefan pointed > out (3 DB changes). > > OCB is working because he is the way it is now. Changing it would be nefast I > think. Keep it the way it is is m

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Stefan wrote: > Hi, > > to put this discussion in perspective, let me give an overview of which > schema changes have been put through in ocb-addons/7.0 so far: > > - An 'active' field was added to account.journal > - A sequence field was added to account.tax > -

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/28/2013 11:07 PM, Fabien Pinckaers wrote: Joel, Sorry, but I think you lie to yourself; ocb is not working. Wooah Fabien, that is a lot of FUD that you are spreading if you pardon me saying so. Let's get some of the facts straight. - several bugs have been introduced in only 60 co

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Stefan Rijnhart wrote: > On 10/28/2013 08:30 PM, Olivier Dony wrote: > >> >> So it's very simple: if the OCB contributors find it useful to have a >> faster commit path to the stable branches, then they might find that >> respecting the stable policy somehow is wo

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Stefan Rijnhart wrote: > On 10/28/2013 11:07 PM, Fabien Pinckaers wrote: > > - one can not use it in production since you can not easily do "bzr pull" > to apply latest bugfixes > > I don't even know what you mean by this. I pull OCB-branches on a daily > basis.

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Fabien, Olivier, It is simple... OCB branches exist because OpenERP S.A. has forced their existence... A bug with corresponding fix SHOULD NOT be ignored just because there is no OPW behind it, plain and simple. If OpenERP S.A. accepted more openly community's work, you won't need to burn

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

> Sorry but my feeling is this suddent interest from S.A. in OCB is more about > "control" and "fear"... If you really want to help, stop spreading FUD No. Sorry if I was not clear. My only intention is to have an ocb branch that works so that people can rely on it and we can easily merge it

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/28/2013 01:55 PM, Nicolas Bessi wrote: > Hello, > >> - active field on account.journal: IMHO it's a serious bug introduced >> in ocb branch; if you desactivate a journal containing journal items >> you create inconsistencies in all your legal reports. --> We will >> not merge

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Fabien, We all love OpenERP, I guess that's why we got so passionate about it... It is great that you and Olivier are participating on this thread. Your vision has driven OpenERP to what and where it is today, and we thank you for that! Your suggestions are always welcomed, and even expected

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

+1 Mario I think it's really good thing this kind of discussion between community and OpenERP. At the end we will find a way. It's much better letting know each ones opinion even if it sounds rude or there are differences than don't sharing and start fighting in the dark ones against the others. I

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Dear Fabien, First, thank you a lot for your input in here, this prove (as you said) your interest in that ! For being too rude, there no problem on my side, I know you for quite a while now and I won't take it personally, I always preferred the thinking being said ! That's the way we move things

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

In order to move forward, the next step is to draft a community statement on the role of OCB branches. Because it looks like you expect more than the initial goals (backport of bugs fixed in trunk on v7) What do you expect from the ocb branches? Possible answers: 1/ A more "up-to-date" branch whe

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Le 29/10/2013 10:09, Joël Grand-Guillaume a écrit : (...) So, at the end, the question will be : How OpenERP SA can benefit from us ;) ?! Being an end user, I could just as well ask how you can all benefit from us ? Joking of course - well, half joking at least. But let's not forget the communi

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

@Olivier, Good image. (see attachment) Now OCB is sticky branch in runbot.openerp.com Thank you. +1 Fabien We need use runbot for a SQA and add test yaml, use guidelines... I took the liberty of creating a development flow See next link Development flow for OCB with runbot

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 10/30/2013 05:46 AM, Moises Lopez wrote: @Olivier, Good image. (see attachment) Now OCB is sticky branch in runbot.openerp.com Yes, thanks Olivier (I presume) for making the proxy branches on the official projects sticky on the OCB team page! http://runbot.open

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

On 2013-10-29 10:09, Joël Grand-Guillaume wrote: +100 Dear Fabien, First, thank you a lot for your input in here, this prove (as you said) your interest in that ! For being too rude, there no problem on my side, I know you for quite a while now and I won't take it personally, I always prefe

Re: [Openerp-community] Proposal to improve communication and make more efficient the inclusion of new branches.

Dear all, In order to move forward as Fabien said, I suggest to write down on a pad what we do think OCB is and how do we see it. I started something here: http://pad.openerp.com/p/OCB-Branches It's mainly inspired by this discussion and by the definition Stefan made on the LP project and first