Contributors mailing list archives
Re: Recommended Contributor Tooling (RCT)by
Florent, would you bother to lead the way with a Design Proposal in form of a pull request? Pretty Please!
It is so unbearably messy to discuss things on this mailing list, as I have the impression, there are still only few hard knowledge around. Sry, if I dare to count myself to the more advanced experts.
I'm burning to get my comment's down on some line of codes and learn from others.
This mailing list has grown an advertising show, reasonably shallow at times.
Let's do this the docker way: an open design proposal, where everyone can aport himself to get the best tooling.
LET'S PLEASE MOVE FORWARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS IN A STRUCTURED MANNER.
Btw making a docker-file is not something I would claim specifically, however I understand the anger when other's do so upon ones own work.
This is so screwed up ;-)
I feel I have to answer to your mail.
First of all, as I already mentioned, sorry for forgetting your credit in our contribution.
Said so, your work is open source and we just used it to create our own fork with clear improvements suitable for our needs and views.
You can accuse us of not crediting you but surely not of ripping off. The work in our repo is aimed for our company and if we used your base to our work, we clearly modified and adapted it for our purpose (cleansing what we think are "unnecessary" help files is part of it). As said we just used opensource rules to built our specific docker files that we in turn published opensource.
We do not intend to sell it or take any benefit from it: it is even more, I proposed a docker repo in OCA pushing all my existing knowledge and RD for free (3 months of hassle trying to make work your docker in China which we never succeeded) so that we could start sharing and building an open source repo for the benefits of the community.
We could have proposed commits to your repo and we didnot (we felt that our objectives were different than yours and thought that your repo was valid for the European market). Maybe a mistake but I personally think that I'd rather improve the OCA proposal in a collaborative manner, touching more audience. I do not intend to push specifically our repo there, simply build a suitable docker repo for OCA.
Please note that if you decide to push your work to OCA, you will become coauthor and will have to accept that other companies work are included in yours, diluting your original work. This is how it works in the OCA: this is a team and comprehensive effort to build common tools.
I hope I cleared some misunderstanding and that from there we can start building collaboration for an solid OCA docker repository.
Looking forward to reading you--
Eric Caudal [Founder and CEO]
Skype: elico.corp. Phone: + 86 186 2136 1670 (Cell), + 86 21 6211 8017/27/37 (Office)
Elico Shanghai (Shenzhen/Singapore) Odoo Gold Partner, best Odoo Partner 2014 for APACOn 10/21/2015 08:22 AM, Florent Aide wrote:<blockquote cite="mid:CABmBFWkUnN3Tyq67TUntHTh1h+od00TjRbfnGZJ8q7uubNuanQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">Hi all, I'll answer some point below. 2015-10-20 22:08 GMT+02:00 Raphaël Valyi <firstname.lastname@example.org>: [...] > 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.
Post to: mailto:email@example.com