Contributors mailing list archives

contributors@odoo-community.org

Re: Recommended Contributor Tooling (RCT)

by
XCG Consulting, Florent Aide
- 21/10/2015 00:11:28
Hi all,

I'll answer some point below.

2015-10-20 22:08 GMT+02:00 Raphaël Valyi <rvalyi@akretion.com>:

[...]


> So I feel like you are discovering the topic and trying to impose your views without knowing your subject...
> We are not trying to tell the OCA to adopt Voodoo at all or our side (but we are not against), we are just telling the OCA should not submit > itself to pressures from lobbies to impose their own tooling, before even they exist or get any adoption. I think the OCA should consolidate the best practice as acknowledged by its prominent members, it should not try to impose dogms from projects that don't even have any adoption yet.


Should I understand our docker build is the subject of this remark?


> I think this debate is being a transformed into a tool vendor battle and that it's totally out of the scope of the OCA, at least that's my point > of view...


I feel forced to answer and clarify a few things here.

1° I feel dragged into a flame war I did not start nor intended and
I'll explain why.
2° I (actually we) have experience in deploying our docker build in
production environment

Now to the point. Yesterday night coming back from a well earned
restaurant with fellow odoo & python hackers I was surprised to find a
proposal in this mailing list to propose a docker build for inclusion
in OCA. The night being already spent I shelved it aside and thought
it was not quite right to have production tooling in OCA since each
deployment can be so different...

This morning at the begining of the second day of OCA sprint in Pau
(France), I took some time to look at the proposal and was quite
surprised to find that the docker build was in fact a blatant rip-off
of our enduring effort, polished and supported graciously for a long
time with full source code available freely (has we think it should be
done).

Blatant?

This is our whole repository copied and the readme rewritten to remove
our name and instructions.

The help file proved it:
https://github.com/Elico-Corp/odoo-docker/commit/93d045c8e42487e8e0a4c908c22fcf44c28356ed#diff-20b4f3cfb9d5e98b4c578576ae664505R1

the repository is a full blown copy of https://bitbucket.org/xcgd/odoo

I made suggestions this morning that since we "shared some
similarities" we should maybe at least be cited as authors and be the
ones proposing something.

Tonight I get home after my flight back from Pau and see this commit:
https://github.com/Elico-Corp/odoo-docker/commit/e6f2393e7664658ef4c92bb5c738341e3f486ebd

seb-elico committed with this message: Delete obsolete help file and
change company name

Hint for seb: you removed the help file containing my company name but
you forgot to remove the correspong entries in our boot script:

https://github.com/Elico-Corp/odoo-docker/blob/9.0/bin/boot#L9

line 9 to 13

Are you sure you know what you are doing? Are you sure, as this was
stated this morning, that you deploy this in production?
If I were you I would stop immediately and call a professional like
Raphaël or myself instead of proposing pull requests to OCA ripping
other peoples stuff.

Since you remove "obsolete files" maybe you could also take time to
add a small line in your readme explaining the paternity of your
work...? You found time to remove the original readme and rewrite it,
but found no time to keep our name in it...

Now to the next point. I do not lobby for my tooling being included in
OCA. I lobby that if my work is used in a PR to OCA I should be the
one leading the effort and I should be credited for it.

I had not considered asking for inclusion into OCA because I think
production scenarios are varied and OCA is mainly about the
application, not the production tooling around it. This is not because
I do not want to share. Our build is at the second place on Dockerhub
(behind the official odoo one) and we answer questions and accept PR's
from anyone.

Now here is my focus on this build: production. I do not target
developers or new comers, this is a different thing alltogether, I
target production.

I do not want to impose dogms on anyone, but I do not accept people
ripping our work and removing our company name and claiming to
optimize it when they clearly don't know what they are talking about.

@raphael: Maybe now you understand better the whole fuss and
precipitation on our side.

@all: sorry for the noise, I did not want to bring this openly like
that and I hoped that since "similarities" were observed this morning
things would come to a peaceful step down tonight. I sincerely hope
all this will settle down and we will continue to feel safe in the
OCA.