I sympathize with Lionel's view and arguments.
Personally, I'm not an Aeroo user, but iI think there is no need to
hurry the modules removal before a new home for them is found.
I don't find it an issue for that to be an OCA repo, as long a
maintainer team volunteers to keep it.
/Daniel
On
Thank you for bringing up this discussion Sandy.
I believe this should be put in perspective with previous decisions on
the same topic.
For reference, these are the relevant discussions:
* Releases and announcements #84:
https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-quality-tools/issues/84
* Quality
On 18-10-2014 09:12, Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero wrote:
Hi, I'm with Sandy that splitting each model in a class is a win
strategy, but with a middle term: if you have models that comes from a
one2many field, I prefer having these classes also in the same file as
the main class. For example, I
See https://bitbucket.org/anybox/anybox.migration.openerp/
Daniel
Em 26 de setembro de 2014 07:18:24, Falinwa Hans escreveu:
Has anyone have experience to merge the openERP database?
Is there a module to support that?
For example:
We use database A, for our company in europe
We use database
It means it's a LTS, therefore it will be used on-site for a long time, so it
better be stable.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
Post to : openerp-community@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe :
+1 for no master branches.
In LP no trunk series was already a common (good) practice.
DR
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
Post to : openerp-community@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe :
My understanding is that everything in the migration spreadsheet is considered
migration work and thus doesn't require PR approvals.
DR
No dia 12/07/2014, às 07:09, Guewen Baconnier guewen.baconn...@camptocamp.com
escreveu:
Le 12 juil. 2014 00:37, Holger Brunn hbr...@therp.nl a écrit :
I need advice to setup travis for account financial tools.
The addon account_constraints adds a lot of constraints and make other
addons tests fails.
Nicolas,
You could try splitting up tests into different build jobs:
[offtopic]:
don't forget this excellent reference learning material for git:
http://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/
Out of curiosity, in case you're wondering how these generators work,
they're based on Markov chains
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain):
- based on the original
I work on odoo for a customer and it's impossible to found a way to
create access right by group,
do you know how to do this ?
You're not very clear in the question, but if you mean customer
specific user groups:
- Create a new Group (Settings - Users - Groups) , for example IT
Department.
-
I believe there is an agreement on this, then.
I'll update the migration guide as promised.
/DR
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
Post to : openerp-community@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe :
Daniel Reis
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
Post to : openerp-community@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
I thought it targets the NEXT one and the next one will be V8 when
published.
Yes, right now we have 7.0 for current stable, and master for next
version (v8).
But what happens after v8 is released?
We keep an convention that in the future master means last stable?
If so when v9 is about to
All the steps are there:
https://github.com/OCA/maintainers-tools/wiki/Migration-Launchpad-%E2%86%92-GitHub#help-on-the-launchpad-mirroring
My bad, I didn't realize those instructions were in the same page. I
added an internal link for other blind people like me to see it.
Regards
/DR
Sandy proposed to rename the modules with _unported to avoid them to
be checked by Travis. At that time I didn't recall that modules where
moved in __unported__ in 7.0 (it had been discussed but I don't think it
has been done on 7.0 branches, at least on most of the projects, I'm
sure I
subdirectory
convention over the _unported suffix convention.
I believe the impact on already migrated repos is negligible.
So I open the discussion on this, and of couse will follow whatever
consensus comes out of it.
Best regards,
Daniel Reis
Not sure if it's well supported in 6.1, bat what about using gunicorn
workers?
At least on v7 workers are regularly killed and restarted, giving you
that fresh restart effect on used memory.
/DR
___
Mailing list:
This project is now hosted on https://github.com/OCA/project-service. Please
move your proposal there.
This guide may help you
https://github.com/OCA/maintainers-tools/wiki/How-to-move-a-Merge-Proposal-to-GitHub
--
Please, we need someone to devote himself so we can move forward, this
is a blocking position.
Can the conclusions be summarized, so that we can confirm no one
disagrees?
/DR
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
Post to :
Hi Guewen,
Then, those maintainers will be responsible to do each step for the
selected projects according to
https://github.com/OCA/maintainers-tools/wiki/Migration-Launchpad-%E2%86%92-GitHub#migration-steps
I think need some assistance on some of the migration steps:
2) I found necessary
Last November we has a discussion on this in this ML:
https://lists.launchpad.net/openerp-community/msg04016.html
The conclusion was to move unported modules under a __unported__
directory (besides changing installed key to False).
/DR
Em 26/06/2014 20:22, Sandy Carter escreveu:
-BEGIN
Stefan,
I took it a little father and got a /git log /looking very similar bzr's:
git log --pretty=format:%h %an %ad %s --date=short --first-parent
Guewen,
Regarding OCA/project-service, history looks good also.
/DR
Em 26/06/2014 20:26, Stefan escreveu:
Hi Guewen,
thanks again. I've checked
Regarding Project MLs, my experience is that most of them have no actual
activity.
Probably the Odoo discussion Groups can work well as a replacement.
Actually, that's supposed to be the way to go for the community ML:
https://www.odoo.com/groups/Community-General-59?mode=thread
Now a crazy
I suggest opening a Project Service GitHub Issue as a starting point
for a collaboration on that feature:
https://github.com/OCA/project-service/issues
Regards
/DR
Em 26 de junho de 2014 11:54:37, Eric Flaux escreveu:
Module project_gtd in V8
Hello all,
project_gtd is supposed to be
Osiell
Immeuble Omega
Rue Jean-Marie David
ZAC de la Teillais
35740 PACE
Tél: 09.72.30.30.29
Mob: 06.84.49.86.71
E-mail:eric.fl...@osiell.com
www.osiell.com
-Message initial-
*De:* Daniel Reis dgr...@sapo.pt
*Envoyé:* jeu. 26-06-2014 13:29
*Sujet:*Re
...@osiell.com
www.osiell.com
-Message initial-
*De:* Daniel Reis dgr...@sapo.pt
*Envoyé:* jeu. 26-06-2014 16:33
*Sujet:*Re: [Openerp-community] Module project_gtd in V8
*À:*Eric Flaux eric.fl...@osiell.com;
*Cc:* openerp-community
Can you 'git push' back to the bzr remote?
Yes, git-remote-bzr supports that. Note that we shouldn't need that here.
Stéphane Bidoul proposed a migration strategy on this thread, on
21/06/2014, based on git-bzr-ng.
For short you:
* Use git bzr clone from Launchpad, and then git bzr import to
Hello Ana,
In GitHub you should use Issues also for blueprints/new features .
They just have to be tagged accordingly.
I suggest everyone to use them a lot more that blueprints were used in
Launchpad:
That would allow to coordinate efforts to build new features needed by
more than one
Hi Mohamed,
Maybe you could try making the question at https://help.odoo.com
It's more suited for these how do I typo of questions.
Kind regards
Daniel
Quoting Mohamed M. Hagag mohamedhagag1...@gmail.com:
Dears,
How to dynamically alter qweb templates contents based on python
it mentioned somewhere?
Olivier, maybe you could give us some advice on this?
Thanks!
/DR
Quoting Daniel Reis dgr...@sapo.pt:
Thanks for the advice.
I think I got it working.
It seems to me you should repeat the process for each branch to migrate:
$ bzr branch lp:project/6.1
Hello all,
I was willing to give a try on migrating repositories from LP to GitHub.
Could someone share the state of the art on this - is there any migration
scripts available?
Thanks
/DR
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
is correct, I'll have to check further:
Maybe git fast-import should be given --import-marks ?
Please raise a flag if anyone sees something wrong.
Regards
/DR
Quoting Stefan ste...@therp.nl:
On 13-06-14 16:26, Daniel Reis wrote: Hello all,
I was willing to give a try on migrating
Daniel Reis has proposed merging lp:~dreis-pt/sale-wkfl/7.0-sale_noinvoice-dr
into lp:sale-wkfl.
Requested reviews:
Sale Core Editors (sale-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/sale-wkfl/7.0-sale_noinvoice-dr/+merge/221383
A neat module to just skip
Hello all,
Joël Grand-Guillaume also made a remarkably similar mapping for teams.
I updated the spreasheet to integrate his contribution.
I invite you all to review it and flag anything that doesn't seem
right.[1]
Joël: I kept a few differences from your list, they are marked in blue
colour
Here is a proposal to cut the 47 teams into only 28:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15aVznH-4ploi7d6yPvchyh5ZplzewbA2qYmDLDfndqU/edit?usp=sharing
Some teams have only empty repos and have been inactive.
Not sure it it's worth to create them on GitHub, but I haven't removed
them from
OCA must eventually become a large code-base (linux-size large would
not surprise me): does it help if we spread it all over the place?
I'm counting around 50 OCA repos.
Personally, I'm interested in only about 5 of them.
I would prefer avoiding the notifications on the modules of the other 45
Make your calculations here: https://accounts.openerp.com/page/pricing
/DR
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
Post to : openerp-community@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
More help
Daniel Reis has proposed merging lp:~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-fixcounters
into lp:project-service.
Requested reviews:
Project Core Editors (project-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-fixcounters/+merge/219558
In v7, Project
Review: Approve
I believe this covers the distinct user cases better than Jordi's MP.
So I would prefer for this one to be merged.
Anyway, I invited him for this review.
On the syle side, it's just a personal preference, but for:
employee_ids = employee_obj.search(cr, uid,
Yes. And washing machines also are made to break after a couple of years so you
have to buy a new one.
DR
No dia 04/05/2014, às 11:52, Christian Eichert c...@zp1.net escreveu:
This was a bad idea.
Now opener-server does not start any more at all.
I have never seen a software before that
On load stress, I was able to produce SERIALIZATION_FAILURE errors, but not
sure if this is rather an oe-server performance limitaion instead of a problem
specific of the module.
(I opened several browser windows and loaded in all of them a page that takes
several seconds).
2014-05-02
The perfect is enemy of good; a perfectly working module should not go to
waste, even more when it covers an area where there is no other module
available.
IMO we should continue the review then, assuming the current design choices.
--
First of all thanks for embracing the open-source spirit by sharing your module!
The current features are of course focused on your specific use case.
But it would be good for your module to be the foundation to build on for more
complex usa cases.
For that, I would suggest a slightly different
Daniel Reis has proposed merging lp:~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-unported into
lp:project-service.
Requested reviews:
Project Core Editors (project-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-unported/+merge/217271
--
https
Hi Jöel,
This mainly adds a referenced field for project_id.department_id.
I believe that there is interest in having a future module adding a
department_id as a real Task attribute.
Because of this, I support Pedro's opinion on renaming the 'department_id'
field to 'project_department_id'.
--
I also noticed that only 20-25% of process log lines have the model field
filled. Why is this?
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/server-env-tools/7.0-monitoring/+merge/215138
Your team Server Environment And Tools Core Editors is subscribed to branch
lp:server-env-tools.
--
Mailing
It's still a work in progress, but you could have a look at
http://openerpapps.info
I expect it to evolve into a mature answer for what you describe.
DR
No dia 11/04/2014, às 14:33, Christian Eichert c...@zp1.net escreveu:
I must apologies that I ask again ,
can someone explain one more
I don't see why there should be an opinion based voting on this.
The style rule should be the one set by the software editor - OpenERP SA.
If their standard is not clear, we should work on that instead.
I don't see a reason to diverge from the editor's choice.
But if there are strong
Daniel Reis has proposed merging
lp:~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_issue_reassign-dr into
lp:project-service.
Requested reviews:
Project Core Editors (project-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_issue_reassign-dr/+merge
It's ready to be reviewed.
A new feature was added, to generate a notification when the Issue's
responsibility changes.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_issue_reassign-dr/+merge/195275
Your team Project Core Editors is requested to review the proposed merge of
Daniel Reis has proposed merging
lp:~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_issue_reassign-dr into
lp:project-service.
Requested reviews:
Project Core Editors (project-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_issue_reassign-dr/+merge
Review: Needs Fixing
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~jb.eficent/department-mgmt/department-mgmt-bugfixes_analytic/+merge/212299
Your team Department Core Editors is subscribed to branch lp:department-mgmt.
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community-reviewer
Post to :
I agree with Pedro. It would be best to keep department_id as a plain many2one,
and instead have a default value for it.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~jb.eficent/department-mgmt/department-mgmt-bugfixes_analytic/+merge/212299
Your team Department Core Editors is subscribed to branch
Maybe extending the create() method - if department_id is empty, it could be
found and filled after the super() call.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~jb.eficent/department-mgmt/department-mgmt-bugfixes_analytic/+merge/212299
Your team Department Core Editors is subscribed to branch
Great work!
Nitpicks:
L103: could you add the .pot file?
L254-256: the body header text would be best as a single translatable string
L262: s/Passkey used/_(Passkey used)
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~sylvain-legal/server-env-tools/7.0-auth_admin_passkey/+merge/211338
Your team Server
In my case, Tags solved this for me when migratibg from v6 to v7.
Could Tags be enough to solve this?
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/project-service/project-service-add-project-typology/+merge/211992
Your team Project Core Editors is requested to review the proposed merge of
Quoting Lionel Sausin, de la part de l'équipe informatique Numérigraphe
informati...@numerigraphe.com:
This would fit better in a localization effort than in a
data-oriented project in my opinion.
+1
___
Mailing list:
I think Jeff's point was for users to be able to access contextual help
from the screen they are currently at.
It's a feature on any decent ERP that is missing from ERP. It is
particularly valuable for functional experts, that depend on this to
figure out the impact of configuration decisions
-pt/project-service/7.0-issue_task-dr/+merge/195985
So, the question here is:
Regarding OCA reviewed modules, should the code targeting OpenERP = 7.0
be made to keep Python 2.6 compatibility?
Regards
Daniel Reis
___
Mailing list: https
Hello all,
I'm trying to build a WebApp proof-of-concept for OpenERP.
It should be a offline-first, mobile-first app, and work independently
from OpenERP's webclient.
For my proof-of-concept I'll be using Boostrap and Backbone with
LocalStorage.
These components are already part of
Nishant,
Even though it's not been accepted for inclusion as an OCA-reviewed module, I
think you should publish this on a Serpent's Launchpad project. Please post
here where you chose to place it.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~serpentcs/server-env-tools/7.0-base_synchro/+merge/183102
Your
I didn't understand that, thanks for clarifying Stephan.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~serpentcs/server-env-tools/7.0-base_synchro/+merge/183102
Your team Server Environment And Tools Core Editors is subscribed to branch
lp:server-env-tools.
--
Mailing list:
+ decent date and time selection widgets, also usable on touch screens.
+ avoid scrolling all the way to the right to access the filter box on smaller
screens.
+ having the form previous / next nav buttons stay always on the same place
(they move down when the breadcrumb wraps to the next line)
issues for you?
What do you think of the current solutions?
What do you think should be right direction to follow?
Regards
Daniel Reis
Ligações:
-
[1] a href=http://assertive.io/blog/0-openerp-packages;
http://assertive.io/blog/0-openerp-packages/a
[2] a href=https://pypi.python.org
Hi Stéphane,
I remember exchanging some messages with you on that, on that about a
year ago, by the time I published an earlier attempt on this problem
(http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/+junk/apps/files).
Loempia is doing it's service to support OpemERP's app store, but
(AFAIK) it's
The proposal to merge lp:~vauxoo/openerp-hr/7.0-dev-hr_payroll_manager_groups
into lp:openerp-hr has been updated.
Status: Needs review = Rejected
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~vauxoo/openerp-hr/7.0-dev-hr_payroll_manager_groups/+merge/194745
--
I need to ask for some advice on this:
I have some custom record access rule, and have found some cases where the
users are having unwanted access denied errors.
My problem is that it's hard to trace how the record rules end up being
mixed together and figuring out what's wrong.
Currently, I
Hello Fabien,
Fist, I have congratulate you and your team for the great work you've
been doing. You're pushing opensource to new frontiers.
I'm also glad to see that you're taking scalability issue seriously and
taking them into account in product development.
I'm sure pretty soon we'll
Hello Fabien,
Fist, I have congratulate you and your team for the great work you've
been doing. You're pushing opensource to new frontiers.
I'm also glad to see that you're taking scalability issue seriously and
taking them into account in product development.
I'm sure pretty soon we'll
Here it is:
https://github.com/dreispt/pipo
Please note that this is still a work in progress, and it might have a few
rough edges.
It should work as is, though.
And it's also my first Python3 program (new year, news tricks to
learn...).
I intend for it to become a pip extension/wrapper
As a coincidence, part of a pet project and inspired by assertive.io,I have
a python script that:
1) generates setup.py files for OpenERP modules, and
2) can call these setup.py to build source distribution packages
The version numbering is a problem here.
The script is capable to use
I personally tried but had trouble with the from . import formula: if the
addons dir is a symlink and the module dir is another symlink, the import
failed.
DR
No dia 27/12/2013, às 19:04, Maxime Chambreuil
\(http://www.savoirfairelinux.com\) maxime.chambre...@savoirfairelinux.com
escreveu:
The proposal to merge
lp:~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_issue_reassign-dr into
lp:project-service has been updated.
Status: Needs review = Work in progress
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_issue_reassign-dr/+merge/195275
--
I found possible usability issues, so I'0m setting to Work in Progress while
I investigate.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_issue_reassign-dr/+merge/195275
Your team Project Core Editors is requested to review the proposed merge of
project_sla/project_sla_demo.xml:104:17: Xml Tag Has Empty Body
project_sla/project_sla_demo.xml:127:17: Xml Tag Has Empty Body
I can see that it could be neater, but strictly speaking this neither a
programming nor a style issue, so I think it isn't worth the trouble.
As for translating
Thanks for the thorough review, Sandy.
I just pushed the fixes, and here go some comments on it:
PEP8 issues:
You just made me realize my pep8 configs needed some tuning.
E123 is not strict PEP8 (see E123 on
https://pep8.readthedocs.org/en/latest/intro.html), and I choose not to follow
it: I
That's been answered on the Help site a couple of days ago.
DR
No dia 21/12/2013, às 18:55, Jean-Marc Dupont j...@6it.fr escreveu:
Hi everybody,
Does anyone know how to redirect a URL like http://myserver.com:8069/?db=mydb
to a URL like mydb.myserver.com
Thanks in advance
Jean-Marc
Good to know that, thanks.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/contract-management/7.0-project_sla-dr/+merge/199645
Your team OpenERP Community Reviewer/Maintainer is subscribed to branch
lp:contract-management.
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community-reviewer
Post to
Review: Disapprove
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~vauxoo/openerp-hr/7.0-dev-hr_payroll_manager_groups/+merge/194745
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:~openerp-community/openerp-hr/7.0-modules-from-addons-hr-ng.
___
Mailing list:
Hi Leo,
It seems from your answers that there is not a consensus on that, so my
suggestion is to accept them both, since they are both pep8-legal.
I believe the thread was about asking on personal preferences.
As far as I can tell, the discussion is not about changing the status quo:
as long
Review: Approve lgtm
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~savoirfairelinux-openerp/openerp-hr/unique_code/+merge/196184
Your team HR Core Editors is requested to review the proposed merge of
lp:~savoirfairelinux-openerp/openerp-hr/unique_code into lp:openerp-hr.
--
Mailing list:
Daniel Reis has proposed merging
lp:~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_sla-dr into lp:project-service.
Requested reviews:
Project Core Editors (project-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_sla-dr/+merge/196960
Service Level
with these
modules:
Create a .inactive directory and bzr mv the modules into it.
This will remove the cluttrr from the bracnh root but still keep their
history.
If/when they are ported, they can again be bzr mv to the root.
Regards
Daniel Reis
Regarding Joëls concern, in my opinion having the modules under a
subdirectory won't make it harder for people to find them.
Right now they can only be found by inspecting the branch directory, and
that won't change significantly.
But I admit that using a hidden directory probably isn't a good
:10:46 CET, Daniel Reis wrote: Regarding
Joëls concern, in my opinion having the modules under a
subdirectory won't make it harder for people to find them.
Right now they can only be found by inspecting the branch directory,
and that won't change significantly.
But I admit
How about the download link here?
https://github.com/akretion/openerp-addons/tree/ocb-7.0
Regards
Daniel
Quoting Houssine BAKKALI houssine.bakk...@gmail.com:
Hi everyone,
I'm actually wondering if there is any nightly build process in
place on the OCB branch. If so were it
Hello Katherine,
I tested creating Pay Splips with a HR Manager user, and I confirmed your
problem:
I got the same error you found everytime and wasn't able to create a single
Payslip.
This can be solved by just creating a Record Rule on Payslips, for the HR
Manager group, with domain [(1,
Daniel Reis has proposed merging
lp:~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_categ-dr into lp:project-service.
Requested reviews:
Project Core Editors (project-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_categ-dr/+merge/195384
Add
Done!
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/department-mgmt/project-issue/+merge/175079
Your team Department Core Editors is subscribed to branch lp:department-mgmt.
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community-reviewer
Post to : openerp-community-reviewer@lists.launchpad.net
Review: Approve
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~therp-nl/ocb-addons/7.0-lp1249600-reverse_ocb_email_defaults/+merge/194621
Your team OpenERP Community Backports Team is requested to review the proposed
merge of lp:~therp-nl/ocb-addons/7.0-lp1249600-reverse_ocb_email_defaults into
Should the status for OCB be changed? To Invalid?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenERP
Community Backports Team, which is a bug assignee.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1163832
Title:
Partner settings should default to opt-out for email messages
Status
Daniel Reis has proposed merging
lp:~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-service_desk-dr into lp:project-service.
Requested reviews:
Project Core Editors (project-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-service_desk-dr/+merge/195270
New modules
Daniel Reis has proposed merging
lp:~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_issue_reassign-dr into
lp:project-service.
Requested reviews:
Project Core Editors (project-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/project-service/7.0-project_issue_reassign-dr/+merge
Review: Needs Fixing
Thanks for the MP.
Some high level remarks:
The HR Manager group has full access to all HR modelss and records.
The HR Officer is the one with a record rule limiting access based on
Departments.
Don't you mean to extend HR Officer role instead?
And if the issue is that HR
Yes, I'll get back to it as soon as I can; just been too busy lately.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~dreis-pt/ocb-addons/7.0-bug1079476-dr/+merge/186394
Your team OpenERP Community Backports Team is requested to review the proposed
merge of lp:~dreis-pt/ocb-addons/7.0-bug1079476-dr into
Hi all,
I've just encountered some behaviours I found unexpected (broken?), and
I traced them back to this fix.
(#1) On a document's Openchatter, write a message using the full mail
composer dialog; there you are able to add new email addresses/Partners on the
fly. I found that these new
Nice summary Pedro.
But there is a statement there that raised my attention: Set a path to
contributors to become reviewers
I may be missing something, but as far as I know, there are no vested
reviewers:
anyone can be a reviewer in any MP they feel confident enough to give an
opinion
Yes, perfectly.
In fact, you just sticked to the LP Team's name, and the confusion comes
from there:
I think it should be called OpenERP Community Maintainers instead of
OpenERP Community Reviewers.
As a negative side effect, the current naming can put off people from code
reviews, because
David,
You may give a try at this tool: https://github.com/dreispt/oetor
It's still in an early stage, but I'm hoping it can be helpful to people
getting started with OpenERP development.
Regards
Daniel
Quoting David tran...@gmail.com:
Ok gotcha, Thanks Ray and Brendan.
The way I was
Daniel Reis has proposed merging lp:~dreis-pt/ocb-addons/7.0-bug1243628-dr into
lp:ocb-addons.
Requested reviews:
OpenERP Community Backports Team (ocb)
Related bugs:
Bug #1243628 in OpenERP Community Backports (Addons): [7.0] Any change on
Project Issue resets the Last Action Date
https
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
