1. Mailing Lists
  2. Contributors
  3. Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative

Contributors mailing list archives

contributors@odoo-community.org

Browse archives

Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative

Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative

Avatar

Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative

by
Raphaël Akretion
- 27/06/2025 19:20:24
Hello,

Akretion founder here and Odoo full time since 2008, co-created the OCA along with the old "Certified Training Partners" back in 2013, often still topping amongst the top 10 OCA contributors and carrying the hardest Odoo localization (Brazil, larger codebase than TinyERP 4.2, soon larger than Odoo 5, 90% test coverage).

Just a word to say, this is a very sad situation. While I trust Alexis about the quality of his incredible work and thank him for leading the French OCA localization, I should say that "skipping a few native fields" is certainly not more condemnable than skipping Odoo odoo versions.

Yes at Akretion we largely skept version 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17 and having a better focus on even versions helped us a lot to float the boat.
But hell, all that would never be possible if some people were not adopting these odd versions. There would be no working OpenUpgrade path if some major players (including Tecnativa, Dixzmit, Forgeflow) didn't adopt these odoo versions. How many modules would not have made it to v14 if these players (and others like CamptoCamp, Acsone...) didn't bit the bullet for us in v13. Cause yes it's easy to jump on even versions once the "community" did half the work on the odoo versions.

And certainly part of the mess is due to Alexis not aligning with the other banking PSCs during versions 15 or 17 and then path diverging at 16 or 18.
Again, we know why we skip these odd versions, but skipping them and then pointing the finger to the others for not adopting the "native way" is not something I can agree with sorry.
Certainly the "keep throwing shit at the wall until something sticks" roadmap from Odoo, that is sell shit early, fix it years later if they can, or "fake it until you make it", is hardly sustainable for an open source community, but we are all trying to cope with it and skipping versions is no better than not adopting what is often just "shit at the wall" early on.

Moreover, there are other cases very major cases were Pedro was the first to push important native refactors (or "innovation" if you like) in account_payment_order:

Finally, I think some people do not follow the Github OCA notifications and don't have a clear vision about the INCREDIBLE AMOUNT of WORK done in the OCA by the so called dictator Pedro Baeza, and even Enric from Dixmit or other people supporting the legacy OCA/account-banking way.

Yeah, it's easy to point the finger to Pedro and many people may not like that he did a negative review of their PR. But I think the guys from Acsone just don't accept either untested or sub-optimal code that Pedro uses to block. It's just that Pedro does reviews at a scale nobody does so it's easy to point him as "the bad guy" of the OCA.

But my important point here is: we should stop behaving as spoiled children here. Without Pedro I think we would all be trapped in bullshit jobs running after our Odoo Enterprise licenses monthly sale targets until Odoo investors kill us one by one as they did with all their serious "partners", most of them not even there anymore to warn the next lemmings.

Before making critics to Pedro and people like Enric, people should REALLY be aware of what it mean to achieve these contributions figures years after years after years:

People who do not follow the Github notifications and think work only happens during the official meetings are just not getting the big picture.
So once you understand our whole OCA thing relies on people like Pedro, I think you should adjust to make it easier, not harder for these guys.
And people saying "if Pedro were not doing it, others would do it, it would be more democratic", Sorry but I call that wishful thinking from people not used to running open source projects.

If no converging way can be achieved, at least I think people behind the fork should assume to work to minimize the impact. For instance, help extract payment_order_dependencies in other repos, or provide common abstractions they can depend on...

About skipping versions: my recommendation at Akretion is even if we keep skipping versions for our projects, we should help migrate the main modules we pretend to be responsible for the odd versions to avoid that kind of situation.

So I hope you guys will find the best way, but here are my 2 cents.


On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:32 AM Enric Tobella Alomar <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Alexis,

You removed all history from 17 and part of 16. Some of the fixes that you made were already done by other people.

I am just analyzing https://github.com/OCA/bank-payment-alternative/pull/5. The same might happen with all other modules of your alternative, but I don't have the energy or time to do it...

Just to start: you didn't rewrite the history. Commits will be lost on next migration (removing people attribution in the next migration, not now...)

We shared with you how to do it here in a non-blocking review (we didn't want to block your job): https://github.com/OCA/bank-payment-alternative/pull/5#pullrequestreview-2931804750

About removing people attribution: I will raise 2 small examples because it takes time to compare.

- https://github.com/OCA/bank-payment/commit/1d37132360fae0d8b6d3204e63007862f3325922 was lost. It improved how it was handled the tests but you ignored it...

Do you need more examples?

My recomendation would be: "check the history of branch 17"

--
Enric Tobella Alomar
CEO & Founder

_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe



--
Raphaël Valyi
Founder and consultant

Reference