Dear all, A bit late, but better late than never... I completly share Stefan's vision here. I'm also inline with what suggested Olivier during the community days ans I'm also happy to see this "Respawning" !
1/ The OCB branches would need to be relocated under the official projects 2/ The OCB branch management process needs to be adapted accordingly 3/ Compliance with the OpenERP stable policy [2] should be added to the review checklist for OCB branches, and the current branches reviewed in this light For option 3) I'm also feeling that community need this freedom of changing such thing if members agreed on that. Currently very few as Stefan pointed out (3 DB changes). OCB is working because he is the way it is now. Changing it would be nefast I think. Keep it the way it is is my vote. Regards, Joël On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Stefan <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/25/2013 04:21 PM, Olivier Dony wrote: > >> >> Only a few obstacles remain before this can become a reality: >> 1/ The OCB branches would need to be relocated under the official projects >> 2/ The OCB branch management process needs to be adapted accordingly >> 3/ Compliance with the OpenERP stable policy [2] should be added to the >> review checklist for OCB branches, and the current branches reviewed in >> this light >> 4/ (Option) In order to allow for some degree of non-compliant changes, >> an "experimental" version of the OCB branches could be forked. It would not >> be recommended for production and not merged back into the official >> distribution. >> >> Stefan, does this accurately describe the options we discussed? >> >> > Thanks Olivier, for highlighting your intentions in this direction again. > > My personal gripe is with [3]. I think having an 'unstable' series that > does allow the occasional new field to percolate through is a major > attraction to OCB. It must be the reason that I remember our conversation > at the community days slightly differently: keep the OCB branch in its > current form with its current policy, but using technical means to mark > merged changes that conform to the OpenERP stable policy so that you can > easily feed back bugfixes from OCB to the official series. We have not yet > had the chance to work this out. > > As for hosting the series branches under openobject-addons, that would be > great. I'll gladly give up the separate projects for the ease of having to > prepare only a single branch and MP for each fix. > > > What do the main OCB contributors think about it? >> > > I'm curious to know as well, as the above reflect my personal views only. > > Cheers, > Stefan. > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~**openerp-community<https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community> > Post to : > openerp-community@lists.**launchpad.net<[email protected]> > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~**openerp-community<https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community> > More help : > https://help.launchpad.net/**ListHelp<https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp> > -- *camptocamp* INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS BY OPEN SOURCE EXPERTS *Joël Grand-Guillaume* Division Manager Business Solutions +41 21 619 10 28 www.camptocamp.com
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
