Contributors mailing list archives


Re: The future of OCB

Narayana Moturi
- 07/10/2016 09:19:52

On 7 Oct. 2016, at 8:08 pm, Pierre Verkest <> wrote:


I follow that wave too, I'm in favor to maintain only OCX instead OCB!

2016-10-05 8:23 GMT+02:00 Stefan Rijnhart <>:
On 10/05/2016 01:08 AM, Holger Brunn wrote:
> We thought up two repos tonight: OCB which is the stable conservative
> branch that rarely needs any patches and reviews because it's
> odoo_stable+bugfixes, as we know OCB. But then without the crazy amount
> of PRs because this branch is only for fixing and we trust in human
> intelligence to understand that.
> Then we have OCX or OCBleeding or however you want to call the branch,
> to merge stuff that's not outright insane. But an interesting testbed
> for adaptions, and this we should merge optimistically. As soon as this
> is an official branch, it will get runbot and coverage, so this gives us
> a playground for interesting stuff to share

One problem of the OCA is that there are too many projects so that the
activity is diluted and not a lot of those projects are functional
optimally anymore. OCB is just another example. It is definitely one of
the less relevant projects at the moment, and I think the resurrection
of an OCX would be a great opportunity to slash OCB.

A very practical element in this is the CI of the other projects. It
would be essential to have the OCA modules from other projects tested on
the OCX branch, like they are on both Odoo and OCB now. But do we really
want to wait for Travis testing against three versions of Odoo or trade
OCB for OCX?


Opener B.V. - Business solutions driven by open source collaboration

Stefan Rijnhart - Consultant/developer

tel: +31 (0) 20 3090 139

Post to:

Pierre Verkest
06 51 35 50 50
Github: petrus-v - Twitter: petrusv84