IRC logs of #tryton for Friday, 2008-06-20

chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Fri Jun 20 00:00:01 CEST 2008
2008-06-20 01:25 -!- irclog(n=irclog@tycho.b2ck.com) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 05:19 -!- yangoon(n=mathiasb@p549F4B92.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 08:18 -!- gadaga(n=gael@sednaco19320-gw.clients.easynet.fr) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 08:18 <gadaga> hi
2008-06-20 08:20 <udono> gadaga: hi
2008-06-20 08:20 <gadaga> udono: hi
2008-06-20 08:27 -!- cedk(n=ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 08:29 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@88.217.184.172) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 10:39 <CIA-53> tryton: htgoebel roundup * #143/add VAT number validation: [new] Validation of VAT ID is required for invicing to EU-countries without VAT. Validation for German ID-Holders is available at <http://evatr.b ...
2008-06-20 10:41 <CIA-53> tryton: htgoebel roundup * #107/Anmerkungen zu German Translations (Deutsche Übersetzungen): Hallo Franz, ein paar schnell heruntergeschriebene Dinge, die mir bei den Übersetzungen zu relations aufgefallen sind: Straße (bis) -> Straße ...
2008-06-20 11:24 -!- FWiesing(n=FWiesing@194.208.185.12) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 11:24 <FWiesing> good morning
2008-06-20 11:25 <Timitos> FWiesing: hi
2008-06-20 11:26 <FWiesing> Timitos: udono: do you read my e-mail from yesterday about linux-day?
2008-06-20 11:26 <FWiesing> what's your opinion?
2008-06-20 11:26 <Timitos> FWiesing: yes. i have to think about but sounds good
2008-06-20 11:26 <udono> FWiesing: yes, I read it.
2008-06-20 11:27 <FWiesing> I got a call from a guy, which is interested - I will meet him in the afternoon
2008-06-20 11:28 <udono> FWiesing: interested in what? LinuxDay? or tryton?
2008-06-20 11:28 <FWiesing> - he want to use the erp-system
2008-06-20 11:28 <udono> FWiesing: ah, ok
2008-06-20 11:28 <FWiesing> in tryton - he didn't know the name!
2008-06-20 11:30 <udono> about Linuxday: This sounds interesting.
2008-06-20 11:31 <FWiesing> End of september it will be decided which presentations on the linux day are shown. It seems, that it is for commercial interested people - exactly our thing
2008-06-20 11:31 <FWiesing> last year there was a presentation about document mangement (open source) - maybe this year agai
2008-06-20 11:31 <FWiesing> again
2008-06-20 11:32 <FWiesing> so I think a presentation of erp/crm-systems would be a interest point on this day
2008-06-20 11:33 <FWiesing> but I didn't know any details at the moment - end of september I can tell you more
2008-06-20 11:33 <udono> FWiesing: its a small meeting, IMHO the right place for a first presentation...
2008-06-20 11:34 <FWiesing> Indeed - it's small - but last year there are 1.000 visitors
2008-06-20 11:37 <FWiesing> last question - The link from my homepage is at the moment not public because I first want to hear your opinion - could I publish the text with information of the new erp-system?
2008-06-20 11:38 <FWiesing> http://www.roadrunnerserver.com/index.php?id=19
2008-06-20 11:43 <Timitos> FWiesing: ich sehe keinen grund, warum du das nicht online stellen könntest. leg einfach los.
2008-06-20 11:46 <FWiesing> ok - it's just for your information.
2008-06-20 11:46 <FWiesing> afk
2008-06-20 11:56 <FWiesing> back
2008-06-20 12:01 -!- kultviech(n=kultviec@p5B0D1F14.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 12:02 <FWiesing> hi kultviech
2008-06-20 12:15 -!- kultviech(n=kultviec@p5B0D1F14.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has left #tryton
2008-06-20 12:37 <FWiesing> cu
2008-06-20 12:37 -!- FWiesing(n=FWiesing@194.208.185.12) has left #tryton
2008-06-20 14:03 <Timitos> cedk: hi
2008-06-20 14:04 <cedk> Timitos: hi
2008-06-20 14:05 <Timitos> cedk: lets talk about historical data, ok?
2008-06-20 14:05 <cedk> Timitos: ok, I have just a phone and I'm ready
2008-06-20 14:05 <Timitos> cedk: i will wait. don´t hurry.
2008-06-20 14:08 <cedk> Timitos: I'm back
2008-06-20 14:08 <udono> hi
2008-06-20 14:08 <Timitos> cedk: ok
2008-06-20 14:09 <Timitos> cedk: did you think about this topic since our meeting in the of april?
2008-06-20 14:09 <cedk> a little
2008-06-20 14:09 <cedk> I have an idea about how to implement it
2008-06-20 14:09 <Timitos> i also made some thoughts. i think we should throw in what we have
2008-06-20 14:10 <Timitos> i also tried to find a solution how to implement it. but there are some issues open.
2008-06-20 14:10 <Timitos> so whats your idea?
2008-06-20 14:11 <cedk> I think modify the ORM to be able to create a history object that have the same DB columns than the original but whithout any constraint
2008-06-20 14:12 <cedk> this object can be create on the fly with a attribute on the first object
2008-06-20 14:12 <cedk> so once we have it, each time the method write is call on the objec, it duplicate the record on the other table
2008-06-20 14:13 <Timitos> so we will have two tables for this object?
2008-06-20 14:13 <cedk> yes
2008-06-20 14:13 <Timitos> ok
2008-06-20 14:13 <cedk> one real like now and one for the history
2008-06-20 14:13 <Timitos> why not trying to implement in the existing table?
2008-06-20 14:13 <cedk> after that we modify the read function to accept a date argument
2008-06-20 14:14 <cedk> Timitos: I don't think that we can use easily the postgresql behavior that you send me previously
2008-06-20 14:15 <Timitos> cedk: i also think, that the behavior needs to be different.
2008-06-20 14:15 <cedk> it will be difficult to handle migration
2008-06-20 14:16 <Timitos> cedk: i think i throw in my thoughts now. i tried to find a solution for one table. then we can compare our ideas, ok?
2008-06-20 14:16 <cedk> ok
2008-06-20 14:18 <Timitos> so, if you define an object with a historical table you need a field which puts all records together which belong to the same record (a little bit difficult to explain)
2008-06-20 14:19 <Timitos> so you have a record customer called "Heinz" an every time you change a field of the record heinz, a new record will made.
2008-06-20 14:19 <cedk> it must be the id as we use it as external key
2008-06-20 14:19 <Timitos> this is similar to what you want to do with the second table
2008-06-20 14:20 <Timitos> but the id is for all records belonging to "Heinz" the same, right?
2008-06-20 14:22 <Timitos> so now, if you open the record in a view always the record with the newest creation date will be shown
2008-06-20 14:23 <udono> ... cedk: you can do that with ORDER BY date asc LIMIT 1 ...
2008-06-20 14:23 <Timitos> yes.
2008-06-20 14:23 <Timitos> now you use this table in a relation
2008-06-20 14:24 <Timitos> if you choose a record you must use the "id" which is for all records which belong together the same.
2008-06-20 14:24 <Timitos> i don´t know if i explained this very good. hope you understand what i mean
2008-06-20 14:25 <udono> Timitos: but there are problem on constraints. With a one table Version we need to maintain the ids in python, but that is bad, I think...
2008-06-20 14:27 <Timitos> udono: i don´t know if this is problematic. but this would have been also with the solution described from postgresql.
2008-06-20 14:27 <Timitos> cedk: your opinion to udonos msg?
2008-06-20 14:29 <Timitos> udono: cedk: i only try to find a solution with only one table. i had not the idea with to tables. i only think that we should discuss more than one idea because it is a tricky topic.
2008-06-20 14:29 <Timitos> so i will go on with my thoughts
2008-06-20 14:30 <udono> timitos: yes
2008-06-20 14:30 <cedk> I agree with udono for the contsraint
2008-06-20 14:31 <cedk> with one table, there will be I think many difficulty with constraint
2008-06-20 14:31 <cedk> like unique constraint that we use to check the integrity of the system
2008-06-20 14:32 <Timitos> ACTION is thinking
2008-06-20 14:33 <cedk> and an other thing is the migration, if for a new version we add a new field that is required, we must fill all the historic data with default value
2008-06-20 14:33 <cedk> instead of just all active data
2008-06-20 14:34 <cedk> and one more, it is about delete record. If we use one table how do we now that a record is deleted
2008-06-20 14:34 <cedk> we must delete all the history
2008-06-20 14:34 <cedk> but with two table, we delete in the first table but keep the history in the second
2008-06-20 14:35 <Timitos> cedk: i think your idea is easier to implement. i will shut up :-)
2008-06-20 14:35 <cedk> Timitos: In fact, I have already seen this kind of implementation in a previous company where I work
2008-06-20 14:36 <cedk> :-)
2008-06-20 14:36 <cedk> but it was using SQL trigger
2008-06-20 14:37 <cedk> and it was on oracle and I think there is a function to create a history table
2008-06-20 14:38 <Timitos> cedk: one question. how would you define an object as historic? do you define this in the object itself or would you define this in a realtion field ? because you need to have a function to save a historic date for the relation field
2008-06-20 14:38 <cedk> One thing, we need once we have historic object, is to be able to give on a many2one, many2many a date
2008-06-20 14:39 <Timitos> yes. i think this can be done within workflow in most cases
2008-06-20 14:39 <cedk> Timitos: I think that historic object must be create automicaly with one attributes on the object
2008-06-20 14:40 <Timitos> cedk: i agree
2008-06-20 14:40 <cedk> but for the date to use in relation field, I'm not sure
2008-06-20 14:40 <Timitos> cedk: an idea...
2008-06-20 14:41 <Timitos> cedk: perhaps you can make an attribute on relation field like "historical=True/False"
2008-06-20 14:41 <Timitos> if it is true a date_field for the relation is created.
2008-06-20 14:41 <cedk> Timitos: yes but we need a date in fact
2008-06-20 14:41 <Timitos> but there is another question.
2008-06-20 14:42 <cedk> I was thinking about give in argument the name of the date field to use
2008-06-20 14:42 <Timitos> do we need to have a date field for every relation field or only for the complete record?
2008-06-20 14:42 <cedk> like 'create_date' or 'invoice_date' etc...
2008-06-20 14:42 <Timitos> cedk: good idea
2008-06-20 14:42 <cedk> Timitos: I think that the date must come from the record and not from the relation
2008-06-20 14:42 <cedk> and for many2one there is no relation table
2008-06-20 14:43 <udono> cedk: Timitos, The best solution in my opinion would be one, where the framework maintain the history. A fields.* will be another internal and external representation when it is historical or not.
2008-06-20 14:43 <udono> ... but I know its hard to realize...
2008-06-20 14:43 <Timitos> cedk: i don´t understand completly
2008-06-20 14:44 <cedk> udono: I don't understand
2008-06-20 14:44 <cedk> Timitos: what?
2008-06-20 14:44 <Timitos> cedk: the date must come from the record?
2008-06-20 14:45 <udono> cedk: gimme a minute, I try to explain...
2008-06-20 14:45 <cedk> Timitos: ha, like for example the invoice: the date where the party must be read is the date of the invoice
2008-06-20 14:45 <Timitos> i think we should talk form table a and table b. perhaps we can understand each other better.
2008-06-20 14:45 <Timitos> cedk: ok. but...
2008-06-20 14:45 <cedk> Timitos: or object and historic object
2008-06-20 14:46 <Timitos> cedk: reverse
2008-06-20 14:46 <Timitos> cedk: i start again
2008-06-20 14:46 <Timitos> cedk: for invoice the date is clear
2008-06-20 14:47 <Timitos> cedk: all reation fields depend in history on the invoice date
2008-06-20 14:47 <cedk> Timitos: in fact I think it is more the date when we open the invoice
2008-06-20 14:48 <Timitos> cedk: but could it be that the relation field can have different historical dates? if this case can be then we need for every relation field a date_field
2008-06-20 14:48 <Timitos> cedk: yes. it is the date of opening the invoice
2008-06-20 14:48 <cedk> Timitos: yes, it will be like this: party = fields.Many2One('relationship.party', 'Party', history='invoice_date')
2008-06-20 14:49 <cedk> Timitos: so I think it need to be on each fields
2008-06-20 14:50 <cedk> udono: still don't understand your idea?
2008-06-20 14:50 <Timitos> cedk: on this way i can define in one object more different dates. great. perhaps we need this. but i don´t know a case yet.
2008-06-20 14:51 <Timitos> cedk: yes i think your idea is a great solution for the topic
2008-06-20 14:51 <cedk> Timitos: but there is some works :-)
2008-06-20 14:51 <Timitos> cedk: yes i know :-(
2008-06-20 14:52 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@port-87-193-170-219.static.qsc.de) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 14:52 <cedk> Timitos: one more think we need, is a view to see all the history of a record
2008-06-20 14:53 <Timitos> cedk: is this a big problem? i think not
2008-06-20 14:53 <cedk> Timitos: no, but it can be well integrate in the client
2008-06-20 14:53 <cedk> Timitos: perhaps something like timemachine
2008-06-20 14:53 <Timitos> you mean a widget?
2008-06-20 14:53 <Timitos> tekknokrat: hi
2008-06-20 14:54 <cedk> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/timemachine.html
2008-06-20 14:54 <udono> cedk: that I ment with internal and external representation... the external view could be an autogenerated view...
2008-06-20 14:55 <cedk> udono: what do you mean by external/internal
2008-06-20 14:55 <tekknokrat> hi Timitos
2008-06-20 14:55 <udono> cedk: internal is the object structure for historical objects, external is the view of the historical datas to the user...
2008-06-20 14:55 <udono> hi tekknokrat
2008-06-20 14:56 <Timitos> udono: i don´t understand you too.
2008-06-20 14:56 <tekknokrat> hi, udono
2008-06-20 14:56 <cedk> udono: ok, do you know timemachine?
2008-06-20 14:59 <udono> Its the same direction cedk walk, I think, maybe just other words. We need to show how each field type of an object behave in historical context... this should be standardized. Than we can generate a automated view for the historical data...
2008-06-20 15:00 <udono> cedk: yes the concept sounds great. Its a mixture of historical immutability and revisioning system...
2008-06-20 15:00 <cedk> udono: we already have a automatic view generator
2008-06-20 15:01 <Timitos> cedk: what ideas do you have on this historic view?
2008-06-20 15:01 <cedk> Timitos: not yet really think
2008-06-20 15:02 <cedk> first think was to use the view of the object but it can be not enough
2008-06-20 15:02 <udono> cedk: yes, I know... but it would be great if we can implement historical data as transparent as possible. So we could autogenerate historical views on each object possible...
2008-06-20 15:02 <cedk> we can have tree view, a list view order by date, the current form view of the object, and a default one that is constructed with all historical field
2008-06-20 15:03 <Timitos> perhaps we can first have a list with the revisions. then you can select the revision and see the content. but this can be done with the normal object view.
2008-06-20 15:03 <udono> cedk: yes, this could be the right way
2008-06-20 15:03 <Timitos> cedk: everything of your ideas sounds good to me.
2008-06-20 15:03 <cedk> or is it usefull to be able to see past record field that is no more used ?
2008-06-20 15:04 <cedk> or we can store the history of the view also, and use the one that match with the date
2008-06-20 15:05 <cedk> but this case, you can see only one record per view
2008-06-20 15:06 <udono> cedk: yes, we have to pay attantion about the views... the historical datas need to fit into the view. So it could be the right way, to save the view with the data.
2008-06-20 15:08 <cedk> udono: not save the view with the data, but historised the ir.ui.view object :-)
2008-06-20 15:08 <udono> cedk: ok
2008-06-20 15:09 <cedk> just a new thought, we need also duplicate relation table of a historised object
2008-06-20 15:09 <cedk> like the tables for many2many
2008-06-20 15:11 <udono> cedk: the object level history will be a big implementation... what about the smaller implementation of a just field level history for the first?
2008-06-20 15:12 <udono> cedk: about the last thought: yes, we need this if we like a real time machine. Than it could be possible to went back to an old date and show the complet system state this time...
2008-06-20 15:15 <udono> cedk: ... this will be the greatest, but most sophisticated...
2008-06-20 15:16 <Timitos> cedk: i vote for an easy version
2008-06-20 15:16 <udono> Timitos: me too, I dont know if we are going to implement oracle into postgres :-)
2008-06-20 15:17 <Timitos> :-)
2008-06-20 15:18 <Timitos> cedk: do you think that what we discussed can be implemented or are there some bigger problems?
2008-06-20 15:19 <udono> Timitos: on the other side I vote for an expandable small start version...
2008-06-20 15:21 <Timitos> udono: yes. but i think that the small solution cedk mentioned can be extended without problems.
2008-06-20 15:22 <Timitos> cedk: i think storing the history of the view is not needed in the first round.
2008-06-20 15:22 <udono> Timitos: the Version cedk metioned is for me the big solution, I am looking for a smaller...
2008-06-20 15:23 <udono> cedk: how could the history table look like?
2008-06-20 15:23 <udono> cedk: is it possible to freeze tryton objects and put them into the db?
2008-06-20 15:23 <Timitos> cedk: with the historical solution we also can handle audit trail i think
2008-06-20 15:25 <cedk> udono: no, browse record are not really objects
2008-06-20 15:25 <cedk> udono: it is the DB record that have all the information
2008-06-20 15:26 <cedk> I think use historical object like I say will be not to complicate
2008-06-20 15:27 <cedk> but need some times, especially for testing
2008-06-20 15:27 <cedk> handling many2many history can be made later
2008-06-20 15:27 <cedk> and the view also, because generally we don't remove field but instead add
2008-06-20 15:28 <cedk> so having the last view will not be a problem
2008-06-20 15:28 <Timitos> cedk: +1
2008-06-20 15:29 <udono> Timitos: But for audittrail we need to save which actions are done by which user at a timestamp. But historical data may enrich the audittrail by the real changes...
2008-06-20 15:30 <cedk> udono: action will be the difference between two history records
2008-06-20 15:30 <Timitos> udono: yes i forgot actions that are not changes to a record
2008-06-20 15:30 <cedk> udono: and we can add the user name to the history table
2008-06-20 15:30 <cedk> Timitos: what action that doesn't change record ?
2008-06-20 15:31 <udono> cedk: yes, combining audittrail and history would be good.
2008-06-20 15:31 <Timitos> cedk: perhaps some workflow? perhaps? perhaps i am confused? :-)
2008-06-20 15:32 <cedk> Timitos: except printing reports, for me action means modify something
2008-06-20 15:32 <Timitos> cedk: yes. that´s right
2008-06-20 15:33 <udono> Timitos: the audittrail is another approach, it needs to be plugged on the actions system in tryton and write down every action a user do. BTW. Printing an Report is an auditable action, too.
2008-06-20 15:33 <cedk> and if we need to store when user print report, it can be done
2008-06-20 15:34 <cedk> Timitos: we can add a logger in the service object that store all the calls
2008-06-20 15:34 <Timitos> cedk: that sounds great
2008-06-20 15:35 <cedk> but I think it will be duplicate with the history objects
2008-06-20 15:36 <udono> cedk: but Audittrail is a general mechanism for all actions and history is just a partial mechnism for some tables?!
2008-06-20 15:36 <Timitos> cedk: only if the object has the historic attribute or would you define all tables with historic attribute?
2008-06-20 15:37 <cedk> yes, you are right
2008-06-20 15:37 <cedk> is it audit need to store reading action?
2008-06-20 15:38 <udono> cedk: If the chief like, it is audit to sore when you go make a coffee ;-)
2008-06-20 15:38 <cedk> udono: it needs big harddrives :-)
2008-06-20 15:39 <udono> :-)
2008-06-20 15:39 <udono> cedk: reading action means that someone open a record? Than yes.
2008-06-20 15:40 <Timitos> udono: this needs really big harddrives :-) i think audit trail for writing is enough for the beginning.
2008-06-20 15:40 <cedk> udono: this is easy, but the hard thing is to display to the user
2008-06-20 15:41 <Timitos> audit trail for reading should pay a customer if he needs it.
2008-06-20 15:41 <udono> cedk, just name them like the action is called internal...
2008-06-20 15:42 <cedk> udono: yes, it is easy to store object, action, args in a table
2008-06-20 15:42 <cedk> udono: but it can slow down the system because of many table access
2008-06-20 15:43 <udono> cedk: like in the xmlrpc request. The easyest thing will be just to collect the actiondata from the xmlrpc...
2008-06-20 15:43 <tekknokrat> may i ask a question, how would you control if a view / object uses the historical data, e.g. for invoice reports
2008-06-20 15:44 <cedk> udono: that what I think
2008-06-20 15:44 <cedk> tekknokrat: I don't understand your question
2008-06-20 15:44 <udono> cedk: the price you pay for auditing everything will be speed. I think its ok and normal.
2008-06-20 15:45 <Timitos> cedk: the admin should be able to set audition to some levels. off, write, write+read
2008-06-20 15:46 <udono> tekknokrat: ced proposed a flag like _history= True in the Object.
2008-06-20 15:46 <Timitos> tekknokrat: example invoice: you have a invoice date. if this is set, then the historic data is used. if it is not set. the actual data is used.
2008-06-20 15:46 <tekknokrat> udono: ah ok thats what i mean
2008-06-20 15:47 <Timitos> tekknokrat: it will be like this: party = fields.Many2One('relationship.party', 'Party', history='invoice_date')
2008-06-20 15:48 <tekknokrat> Timitos: ok, will this be a configurable option in general, or only apply to some objects where it fit the business case?
2008-06-20 15:50 <cedk> tekknokrat: it will depend of the developer, but it will be easy to create module that add history on some objects
2008-06-20 15:50 <udono> cedk: back to historical data: I think we dont need timemachine behaviour for the first. Realy needed is the integrity of datachanges over time, because this is a governmental requirement. Maybe we dont need any views about the history in the first implementation.
2008-06-20 15:51 <tekknokrat> cedk: sounds like a good idea only extending the api a bit and let module-developer decide!
2008-06-20 15:51 <cedk> udono: yes, it can be done in two or three steps
2008-06-20 15:52 <udono> Timitos: did you know if the invoice template needs to be revisioned, too?
2008-06-20 15:55 <Timitos> udono: you are right. the invoice template needs to be revisioned too.
2008-06-20 15:55 <cedk> the template? we already store the invoice in the DB.
2008-06-20 15:56 <udono> cedk: the compleat pdf? or the data only?
2008-06-20 15:56 <Timitos> cedk: yes i forgot. thats enough.
2008-06-20 15:56 <cedk> udono: the complet pdf or odt
2008-06-20 15:57 <cedk> and know also the format :-)
2008-06-20 15:57 <Timitos> the law says, that the records must be hold in an analysable format...
2008-06-20 15:57 <Timitos> and the report must be hold in its original
2008-06-20 15:57 <udono> cedk: oh, I didnt recognized this :-)
2008-06-20 15:58 <Timitos> there ist no demand to do this together
2008-06-20 15:59 <Timitos> great discussion today!
2008-06-20 15:59 <cedk> udono: by the way, can we start including the german translation ?
2008-06-20 16:05 <udono> cedk: Fwiesinger did the translation into the roundup but htgoebel had some changes mentioned. So I would say, just wait. Maybe untill next week on thursday. So everyone may take a look if the translation is ok. I didnt look inside for now. This week is impossible for me, sorry, I have this plone job to do, but maybe next week I will help more.
2008-06-20 16:05 <udono> htgoebel=essich
2008-06-20 16:06 <udono> afk for short
2008-06-20 16:09 <cedk> ok
2008-06-20 16:10 <udono> back
2008-06-20 16:13 <udono> BTW about translation: I thik around to make the translation process more collaborative. So we all have this google login, we could use google database for the translation tables. A tryton module can import the translations from there. So everyone with a google login could contribute translations...
2008-06-20 16:14 <udono> and as a benefit no one of the devels is needed for this to implement translations...
2008-06-20 16:17 <udono> ... another possibility is the use of google spreatsheets, than google database...
2008-06-20 16:20 <udono> ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWCLROPKug0
2008-06-20 16:33 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@port-87-193-170-219.static.qsc.de) has left #tryton
2008-06-20 16:33 -!- kultviech(n=kultviec@p5497632C.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 16:34 <Timitos> kultviech: hallo
2008-06-20 16:34 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@port-87-193-170-219.static.qsc.de) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 16:35 <kultviech> hi Timitos
2008-06-20 16:44 <udono> kultviech: hi
2008-06-20 16:47 <cedk> udono: I think this is now complicate because it is not in the repository but once it is in the repo, we will work only with patches and it will be easier
2008-06-20 16:47 <udono> cedk: yes, the google thing is fo the next year....
2008-06-20 17:04 <tekknokrat> bye, everybody
2008-06-20 17:05 <tekknokrat> /quit
2008-06-20 17:05 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@port-87-193-170-219.static.qsc.de) has left #tryton
2008-06-20 18:12 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@88.217.184.172) has left #tryton
2008-06-20 18:12 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@88.217.184.172) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 19:48 -!- FWiesing(n=FWiesing@194.208.185.12) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 19:49 <FWiesing> good evening
2008-06-20 19:50 <Timitos> FWiesing: hi
2008-06-20 20:07 -!- kultviech(n=kultviec@p5497632C.dip.t-dialin.net) has left #tryton
2008-06-20 21:19 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@88.217.184.172) has left #tryton
2008-06-20 21:20 -!- Timitos(n=kp@88.217.184.172) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 23:36 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@dslb-088-075-236-077.pools.arcor-ip.net) has joined #tryton
2008-06-20 23:37 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@dslb-088-075-236-077.pools.arcor-ip.net) has left #tryton

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!