Re: Release notes lost in the new site

>>So I understand that these pages are now in the site but not referenced, right? Yes, >>If yes, then I agree it should be referenced and the download page seems to fit. Thanks Jacques, I'lll add these link on download page under Release Notes tab. Thanks & Regards -- Deepak Dixit

Re: Check for only QOH while doing reservations

+1 Vaibhav Jacques Le 14/04/2018 à 08:35, Vaibhav Jain a écrit : +1 Suraj I agree with Rishi, We should start another mail thread to discuss race condition. IMO, At the time of reservation, we should check for ATP instead of QOH(As Suraj suggest). Vaibhav Jain Sr. Enterprise Software

Re: Confusing entity names

Le 15/04/2018 à 14:30, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit : Jacques Le Roux writes: Let me clarify my position. I'm not strictly against this change. I don't fear a such OOTB change, after all it's only name change, isn't ? And what you mentioned below Suraj is the right

Re: Confusing entity names

Jacques Le Roux writes: > Let me clarify my position. I'm not strictly against this change. I > don't fear a such OOTB change, after all it's only name change, isn't > ? And what you mentioned below Suraj is the right way to go. Obviously > the concern is for custom

Re: Release notes lost in the new site

HI All, Thinking more about it, if I'm not wrong we don't clearly specify in the site main pages which releases are supported. I think we should clearly state that. The download page seems to fit but maybe having a specific page for releases and releases notes with their support status would

Re: Release notes lost in the new site

Hi Deepak, Sorry my last message was confusing. I was confused, I thought the releases notes pages were accessible from the site. So I understand that these pages are now in the site but not referenced, right? If yes, then I agree it should be referenced and the download page seems to fit.

Re: Confusing entity names

Hi all, I like the all or nothing (yet) proposal (thanks Taher btw :) ), since it offers a way to communicate around this big change and a way to migrate existing implementation. It's an optimum choice for this kind of refactoring, but it will need more effort to deliver it. So now we'll need

Re: Confusing entity names

Let me clarify my position. I'm not strictly against this change. I don't fear a such OOTB change, after all it's only name change, isn't ? And what you mentioned below Suraj is the right way to go. Obviously the concern is for custom projects. Though I'm not directly concerned (I have no

Re: Confusing entity names

I wonder, should it be really all or nothing? Will it not add more concerns and difficulties to deliver a such big package? Should we wait for that to happen, and how long? Jacques Le 15/04/2018 à 02:55, innate Genius a écrit : +1 Taher On 14-Apr-2018, at 12:40 PM, Taher Alkhateeb