Contributors mailing list archives
Re: The future of OCBby
Abstract Technology, Simone Orsi
Sounds like a reasonable approach to evaluate new ways.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Joël Grand-Guillaume <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Hi there,May be we should start with the OCX branch in OCA-dev team first and create the repo only when needed ? I mean, it is not mandatory to replicate everything after a second though...My question is: Are you agree on the principle (having another OCA-dev team, allow OCX there, communicate on the purpose of this branch (not a fork, but for innovation), ... ?Regards,JoëlOn Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Nhomar Hernandez <email@example.com> wrote:On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Eric Caudal <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
We currently are barely keeping the head out of water... Let's make sure about the prioritiesHello.
I think we should left that as it is, because we are already facing a huge overhead in the maintainance of thing, and let's thin of a proper way to manage a secdn branch.Even inside my team I trust only in one editor have a new set of not well maintained OCX repository can bring an incorrect starting point for some people.In the meanwhile we can continue managing our own copy of branches with eternal PR opened to OCB just to say "This is my branch and I did this and this improvements (with proper commit messags)".Regards.----