Contributors mailing list archives
Re: anybox buildout recipe and OCAby
On 10/19/2015 10:38 PM, David Arnold wrote:
Some of its main features include:
I suppose that aspect has been less important since then.
<blockquote cite="mid:CAOLEt-E694Zj+_t18BkofCQW3evVg2MTKSUzPUDyo6dzrybeJQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
I also feel such important decisions (accepting a whole new contribution etc.) deserve public discussions, so I launched the thread to tell the community about this and give everyone an opportunity to discuss.and globally he is ok with this.* we add a compatibility entry point on the new recipe with the old name in order not to break existing buildout files* we modify the original recipe by publishing a new version on pypi which will be empty save for a dependency on the new name of the recipe* we change the name of the recipeJust for the record, I'm not suggesting we should make an exception in this case, and I certainly won't force an exception by abusing my commit rights and forcefully pushing the module in the OCA.I've discussed things with Georges this afternoon and what I proposed him was:2015-10-19 17:53 GMT+02:00 Raphaël Valyi <firstname.lastname@example.org>:Hello Alexandre and others,I defended the idea that Odoo module should not have a company name because several companies would too easily work on the same topic and changing a module name has impact in the database and because it seems more important to have a name that reflects what a module does.Now, for things like the Anybox recipe, I think Anybox will have done 90% of the work no matter the help now. It's not an Odoo module and I don't see reasons to be as strict. So for me I would leave the current name...More generally, overall I like what we do with the OCA, but let me tell I'm concerned with the business model of the thing: yes the OCA receives some donations, but nonetheless 99% of the R&D is invested by the contributing integrators themselves.May be some large integrators can do that as pure give away, but I'm not even sure. But generally, I think the model works IF AND ONLY F: an integrator company can get enough prestige from having its work accepted by peers at the OCA, then this can be a commercial advantage just as large as investing in marketing, at least in some rational high ends markets. THEN the model works and is sustainable.Now, if the OCA ends up totally anonymising and hiding who did some work, if the OCA gives the same visibilty to somebody who created and carried a project 5 years as somebody that just helped over the last 6 moths, then my friends we are shooting ourselves in the feets big times... Because what we get then, is a some ugly lobbying to fake some project participation and hijack the project credits, and this is something already happening.,.So I hope the OCA don't loose this economics reality. And this is for this reason I would be totally ok leaving the Anybox name in this case...Regards.On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Alexandre Fayolle <email@example.com> wrote:2. I'd like to propose Georges (https://github.com/gracinet) as a member of the tools PSC.1. I propose the creation of a new OCA repository OCA/buildout_recipe under the responsibility of the Tools project steering comittee. I will make the required PRs to include the anybox recipes, once the naming issues are resolvedGeorges proposed a few months ago to share the maintenance of the anybox buildout recipe(s) (openerp and odoo) with the community. This was met with approval but as far as I remember the issue of the name (our policy says we should not have company names in module names) was not clearly resolved.Hello fellow,I'm at the PyconFR sprint sitting next to Georges Racinet and a number of Anybox contributors.--
Post to: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org