IRC logs of #tryton for Friday, 2009-02-06 #tryton log beginning Fri Feb 6 00:00:01 CET 2009
2009-02-06 00:54 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 1341:220295b983f4 trytond/trytond/osv/ Fix search in reference to allow inactive records
2009-02-06 00:54 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 1342:1379f56cd204 trytond/trytond/ Use cursor query to display wrong SQL
2009-02-06 00:54 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 401:5d28409f0760 stock/
2009-02-06 00:54 <CIA-10> tryton: Check context value in get_quantity on stock.location
2009-02-06 00:54 <CIA-10> tryton: Verify that the product id from context has a real product record
2009-02-06 00:54 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 402:1a2d3bb157eb stock/ Check context value in view_header_get on stock.location
2009-02-06 01:23 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 265:939a5a35e9ef website/ (7 files in 6 dirs): Remove ohloh javascript to speed up load of page
2009-02-06 02:38 -!- vengfulsquirrel( has left #tryton
2009-02-06 03:36 -!- ikks(i=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 05:19 -!- yangoon1( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 05:25 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 07:48 -!- bechamel(n=user@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 07:49 -!- sharkcz( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 07:51 -!- snowch(n=snowch@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 07:51 <snowch> morning!
2009-02-06 07:54 <CIA-10> tryton: udono roundup * #769/UnboundLocalError: local variable 'object_id' referenced before assignment: [new] This error happens on installing stock module in 1.0 [Thu Feb 05 18:13:43 2009] ERROR:init:Error while parsing xml file: In tag record: mode ...
2009-02-06 07:56 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 07:59 -!- snowch(n=snowch@ has left #tryton
2009-02-06 08:05 -!- Gedd(n=ged@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 08:34 -!- paola( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 08:38 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 08:38 <cristi_an> bechamel: why invoices are by defautl without taxes ?
2009-02-06 08:39 <cristi_an> bechamel: most of invoices 90% have to include taxes (vat) no ?
2009-02-06 08:39 <cristi_an> for customers in the same country.
2009-02-06 08:40 <bechamel> cristi_an: taxes come from products, so you must add taxes on products first
2009-02-06 08:40 <cristi_an> and taxes on the invoice are ?
2009-02-06 08:40 <cristi_an> there is some add taxes
2009-02-06 08:40 <cristi_an> those do not come by default from products
2009-02-06 08:40 <cristi_an> ?
2009-02-06 08:42 <bechamel> cristi_an: you defined taxes on products and they don't appear on the invoice ?
2009-02-06 08:42 <cristi_an> let me recheck
2009-02-06 08:45 <CIA-10> tryton: bch roundup * #769/UnboundLocalError: local variable 'object_id' referenced before assignment: [chatting] This patch corrects the bug, this reflect the same code in the trunk. I don't know if the patch is not already planned.
2009-02-06 08:49 <cristi_an> on demo
2009-02-06 08:49 <cristi_an> i defined
2009-02-06 08:49 <cristi_an> update tax on product A
2009-02-06 08:49 <cristi_an> for customers i put like tax = 19%
2009-02-06 08:49 <cristi_an> but when i do the invoice
2009-02-06 08:49 <cristi_an> tax = 0
2009-02-06 08:49 <cristi_an> despite it aqpper on left bottom small table with taxes
2009-02-06 08:52 <bechamel> cristi_an: you talk about invoice with id 2 on ?
2009-02-06 08:52 <cristi_an> yes
2009-02-06 08:52 <cristi_an> or 3
2009-02-06 08:53 <bechamel> cristi_an: percentage on the tax is 0.0
2009-02-06 08:53 <bechamel> cristi_an: the tax computation is not based on the tax name :)
2009-02-06 08:54 <cristi_an> maybe i defined it worng...
2009-02-06 08:54 <cristi_an> where can i change taxes
2009-02-06 08:54 <cristi_an> ?
2009-02-06 08:55 <bechamel> cristi_an: fincancial mgnt > config > taxes > taxes
2009-02-06 08:57 <cristi_an> bechamel: thx
2009-02-06 08:57 <cristi_an> bechamel: one more thing
2009-02-06 08:57 <cristi_an> sequence what does represent there ?
2009-02-06 08:57 <cristi_an> on taxes
2009-02-06 08:58 <cristi_an> and childs ?
2009-02-06 08:58 <cristi_an> :)
2009-02-06 09:00 <bechamel> cristi_an: it's for some advanceed usage, for example some eco-taxes need to be applied before any other tax (but i don't rememeber if the other taxes increase with the eco-taxe), another example is Quebec where tax are also complicated (quebec taxes are combined with candian ones)
2009-02-06 09:01 <cristi_an> bechamel: and sequence ?
2009-02-06 09:04 <bechamel> cristi_an: sequence is for the same purpose, but I don't exactly when to use child taxe or when to use sequence
2009-02-06 09:06 <cristi_an> thx
2009-02-06 09:06 <cristi_an> A LOT
2009-02-06 09:06 <cristi_an> !
2009-02-06 09:08 <udono> bechamel: cristi_an: Good morning
2009-02-06 09:09 <udono> In germany we have some taxes with 0% taxfree. But we need them to show on invoices. Is this possible?
2009-02-06 09:09 <udono> Timitos: ?
2009-02-06 09:09 <cristi_an> hi there
2009-02-06 09:10 <bechamel> udono: is it not enough to put percentage to 0.0 ?
2009-02-06 09:11 <udono> yes, percentage needed to be 0.0. But the Tax need to be shown as a '0% Taxfree invoice'.
2009-02-06 09:11 <Timitos> udono: yes. i think this is possible. but i have worked on that in the middel of the last year. so i do not remember if it really works
2009-02-06 09:11 <Timitos> udono: percentage can be 0.0. this has been changed by cedk on my advice
2009-02-06 09:12 <Timitos> but i am not sure, if there is created a tax line for such a tax. must be tested
2009-02-06 09:12 <udono> ah, ok. Then I misunderstood cristi_an request in the demodatabase... Sorry
2009-02-06 09:14 <cristi_an> udono: thx
2009-02-06 09:14 <bechamel> Timitos, udono: yes a tax line is created when percentage is 0.0 (the problem of cristi_an was precisely that the tax was created but the amount was still 0)
2009-02-06 09:15 <Timitos> bechamel: udono: so for me everything is correct
2009-02-06 09:17 <cristi_an> it works ok
2009-02-06 09:17 <cristi_an> i was not pyed attention when deinfing taxes
2009-02-06 09:17 -!- nicoe( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 09:23 <udono> On a field in a view I can set the attribute search="1". Is there a way to pre set the search term? The behavior is like restricting a search with domains or search rules, but the user can change the entry himself.
2009-02-06 09:25 <udono> BTW, it's a new topic not related to the previous discussion...
2009-02-06 09:26 -!- snowch(n=snowch@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 09:27 <udono> Example: party_role defines Supplier, Customer, etc. On an Customer invoice it would be good, when I search for the party to be invoiced, that only partys shown with party_type=="Customer". But the user should be able to change or clear the search_term by himsef.
2009-02-06 09:31 -!- carlos(n=carlos@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 09:34 <udono> The same function can be used for account_types when choosing accounts on different places in Tryton. Often there are all accounts shown when only a small subset makes sense.
2009-02-06 09:36 <bechamel> udono: there is no way to do this, either you put a domain on the field (but in this case the user cannot override it) or you leave it like that. but it's not possible to put default value on search fields
2009-02-06 09:37 <Timitos> bechamel: but something like a filter would be a nice feature. i already talked about that with yangoon too
2009-02-06 09:37 <snowch> bechamel: the refactored code is looking very nice!
2009-02-06 09:38 <udono> bechamel: So it's a feature request.
2009-02-06 09:39 <bechamel> udono: yes it's a feature request, but nothing prevent you from adding it to the tracker
2009-02-06 09:39 <udono> bechamel: yes, on the way :-)
2009-02-06 09:39 <bechamel> snowch: most of the refactoring is made by cedk
2009-02-06 09:42 <snowch> bechamel: will references to psycopg2 in places like be refactored to backend?
2009-02-06 09:43 <bechamel> snowch: yes
2009-02-06 09:45 <CIA-10> tryton: udono roundup * #770/Preselecting search terms in search views: [new] On a field in a view I can set the attribute search="1". Is there a way to pre set the search term? The behavior is like restricting a searc ...
2009-02-06 09:45 <snowch> bechamel: great! thanks for the info...
2009-02-06 09:46 <bechamel> snowch: the funny think is that the psycopg stuff in is for exception around pooler method, but pooler itself has abstracted psycopg references, maybe one should ask cedk about this
2009-02-06 09:49 -!- simahawk( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 09:50 <bechamel> afk
2009-02-06 09:50 <snowch> ok, thanks.
2009-02-06 09:54 -!- snowch(n=snowch@ has left #tryton
2009-02-06 09:55 -!- cedk(n=ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 09:58 -!- simahawk( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 09:58 -!- Timito1(n=Timitos@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 10:09 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 1343:72d96c1dcb74 trytond/trytond/osv/ Fix typo for issue769
2009-02-06 10:10 <CIA-10> tryton: ced roundup * #769/UnboundLocalError: local variable 'object_id' referenced before assignment: [resolved] Fixed. It was only on the mercurial version.
2009-02-06 10:27 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 1521:224c5a40b3fb trytond/trytond/ (backend/ backend/postgresql/ Remove psycopg2 from
2009-02-06 10:53 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 11:23 -!- udono( has left #tryton
2009-02-06 11:24 -!- udono( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 12:27 -!- oversize( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 12:32 <CIA-10> tryton: ced roundup * #770/Preselecting search terms in search views: [resolved] It already exist. You must set in the field search_value of ir.action.act_window a dictionary with field names as key and search value ...
2009-02-06 12:32 -!- ikks(i=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 13:09 -!- ikks(i=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 14:08 -!- ikks_(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 14:13 -!- Gedd(n=ged@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 14:16 <CIA-10> tryton: udo.spallek * r435 /wiki/ Edited wiki page through web user interface.
2009-02-06 14:37 -!- ikks(i=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 14:43 <udono> Hi cedk, thanks for the great news on Is there some example in a Module for this?
2009-02-06 14:53 <cedk> udono: no
2009-02-06 14:53 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 1176:cdec12877054 tryton/TODO: Add todo for default value on search fields
2009-02-06 14:53 <cedk> udono: I just add a todo to improve it with your idea of 'set default value'
2009-02-06 14:54 <cedk> udono: I think it will be better than what we have now
2009-02-06 16:39 -!- fp(n=fp@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 16:42 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 16:43 <cristi_an> i am late maybe bu thave you seen what nice site open erp done.
2009-02-06 16:43 <cristi_an> ?
2009-02-06 16:47 <cedk> cristi_an: website still slow
2009-02-06 16:47 <cedk> cristi_an: some links failed
2009-02-06 16:47 <cristi_an> i did not noticved that....
2009-02-06 16:47 <cristi_an> anyway it is better to start being perfect
2009-02-06 16:48 <cristi_an> rather then ...only thinking...
2009-02-06 16:48 <cedk> cristi_an: stable version point to rc1
2009-02-06 16:48 <cristi_an> i am glad for them as i would for tryton as well
2009-02-06 16:49 <cedk> cristi_an: there is no more community link
2009-02-06 16:49 <cristi_an> ???
2009-02-06 16:49 <cristi_an> no link to foruim ?
2009-02-06 16:49 <cristi_an> i noticed that !!!!
2009-02-06 16:49 <cristi_an> that is because they want to be paid ?
2009-02-06 16:50 <cristi_an> that will be indeed ugly !!!!!!
2009-02-06 16:50 <cristi_an> very ugly !!
2009-02-06 16:50 <cedk> and now they use also a google calendar :-)
2009-02-06 16:51 <cristi_an> i hope they will make up their minds
2009-02-06 16:51 <cristi_an> so no forum ????
2009-02-06 16:51 <cristi_an> forum gone ?
2009-02-06 16:51 <cedk> cristi_an: the documentation page has not the same menu then others
2009-02-06 16:52 <cristi_an> there is forum and comunity on
2009-02-06 16:52 <yangoon1> it is under openobject
2009-02-06 16:52 <cristi_an> pen object
2009-02-06 16:52 <cristi_an> open object
2009-02-06 16:52 <cristi_an> yes
2009-02-06 16:52 <cristi_an> cu later guys
2009-02-06 17:05 <cedk> I don't see how they will limit the number of users in sold editions
2009-02-06 17:13 <carlos> Automatic migration NO
2009-02-06 17:13 <carlos> that's why there is no migration script ;-)
2009-02-06 17:13 <carlos> you need to buy such service
2009-02-06 17:16 <nicoe> Yop, just to react, are they really gonna limit the maximum number of users ?
2009-02-06 17:16 <carlos> cedk: it sounds more like a soft limit than a hard one
2009-02-06 17:16 <carlos> what I don't really understand is the users vs accounts
2009-02-06 17:16 <bechamel> maybe they will package the soft wihout source (and with their maintenance keys)
2009-02-06 17:17 <carlos> bechamel: it says they give the source code
2009-02-06 17:17 <carlos> Our Open Source licence gives you the guarantee that you will always be able: to use the software without any restriction, whether it is in time or in number of users or modules.
2009-02-06 17:18 <bechamel> carlos: yes of course I answered to fast
2009-02-06 17:18 <carlos> so I guess they just give you support for cases when you only have a number of users
2009-02-06 17:18 <carlos> if you use more users or accounts than what you contracted, they will 'ask' you to move to the next package
2009-02-06 17:19 <carlos> because the only way to use a hard limit there is with ondemand
2009-02-06 17:19 <bechamel> carlos: yes
2009-02-06 17:19 <carlos> and it doesn't look like an ondemand service, given that it's a fixed fee
2009-02-06 17:20 <carlos> well, this new information explains many things happening in the 5.0 development cycle
2009-02-06 17:21 <bechamel> I love how they justify the limitation of number of user: "With many users, maintenance is potentially difficult because we are then confronted with other problems like the rise in load." -> Ok but what about edition without limit ?
2009-02-06 17:24 <carlos> well, if I understand it correctly, they only support installations with 15 active accounts
2009-02-06 17:24 <carlos> at most
2009-02-06 17:24 <nicoe> according to me account == a user in the database, a user == a real person. Maybe they think that more than one person can use the same account
2009-02-06 17:24 <carlos> so if you have more than 15 users working at the same time, they don't cover you...
2009-02-06 17:25 <carlos> nicoe: do you think so?
2009-02-06 17:26 <nicoe> carlos: That's how I understand "With not confusing with the number of users! The number of accounts is the number of people which can " logged" on Open ERP."
2009-02-06 17:26 <carlos> hmm
2009-02-06 17:26 <carlos> ok, I see it now
2009-02-06 17:26 <carlos> however, I don't think they are assuming users will share accounts
2009-02-06 17:26 <bechamel> the accounts on the user portal is for bug reporting/support
2009-02-06 17:26 <nicoe> or is it the other way around ?
2009-02-06 17:27 <carlos> but that not all people in the company will use OpenERP
2009-02-06 17:27 <carlos> anyway, it seems to be a hiden way to impose license fees
2009-02-06 17:27 <bechamel> it's this instance (took from the source)
2009-02-06 17:28 <fp> hello, just to react
2009-02-06 17:28 <carlos> bechamel: I guess that makes sense
2009-02-06 17:28 <fp> we don't limit users or impose licences fees at all
2009-02-06 17:28 <bechamel> fp: hello, welcome on #tryton :)
2009-02-06 17:28 <fp> OpenERP is and has always been very open (unlike some comments I saw)
2009-02-06 17:29 <fp> The only think which is per user is the maintenance service offers
2009-02-06 17:29 <fp> simply because biggest companies does not need the same SLA than small companies
2009-02-06 17:29 <fp> that's why we have 3 maintenance propositions
2009-02-06 17:30 <bechamel> fp: how will you enforce the number of user ? when the maintenance/support is made ?
2009-02-06 17:30 <fp> for instance on the biggest maintenance proposition we guarantee 5 years of maintenance on stable version
2009-02-06 17:30 <carlos> fp: yeah, we more or less got the idea, but is a bit confusing the mix between users and accounts
2009-02-06 17:30 <fp> we don't restrict number of users
2009-02-06 17:30 <carlos> fp: I think you should try to explain it a bit better so future customers get the idea
2009-02-06 17:30 <bechamel> fp: so what does mean "Up to 15 users" ??
2009-02-06 17:31 -!- igor__(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 17:32 <fp> it's a contract
2009-02-06 17:32 <fp> so if they have more user, we don't guarantee the service
2009-02-06 17:32 <fp> we provide
2009-02-06 17:33 -!- ikks_(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 17:33 <bechamel> so is what carlos said before, to much user == no maitenance or edition upgrade
2009-02-06 17:34 <carlos> which makes sense, just like per computer support contracts
2009-02-06 17:35 <bechamel> /to/too/
2009-02-06 17:36 <cedk> as fixing seems just sending patches, I don't see the difficulty linked with number of users
2009-02-06 17:38 <cedk> and by the way OpenERP (TinyERP) has not been always very open: closed repositories, closed plugins
2009-02-06 17:38 <bechamel> .. restrictive licence for etiny
2009-02-06 17:40 <carlos> bechamel: I thought etiny is GPL
2009-02-06 17:41 <fp> cedk: we don't have closed plugins, they are opensource, we just have 2 plugins for shared funding
2009-02-06 17:41 <fp> please stop crying everywhere openerp is not open this is not fair at all
2009-02-06 17:41 <bechamel> carlos: no it was changed some time ago, you cannot remove the logo and the name from axelor and tiny sprl that appear on it
2009-02-06 17:41 <fp> no
2009-02-06 17:41 <fp> you must keep the openerp one
2009-02-06 17:42 <fp> we provided a way to change the logo, you must just keep the openerp one
2009-02-06 17:42 <cedk> fp: I only say, not in the past
2009-02-06 17:42 <bechamel> fp: a way ? which one
2009-02-06 17:43 <fp> you often had communication on this point to say openerp is not fully open
2009-02-06 17:43 <cedk> fp:
2009-02-06 17:43 <cedk> it is not only me
2009-02-06 17:44 <fp> yes, but you criticise Open ERP every week publicly
2009-02-06 17:44 <fp> I think it's not a good communication
2009-02-06 17:44 <fp> and not fair
2009-02-06 17:44 <panthera> i'm not so informed about all the stuff going behind; however,
2009-02-06 17:44 <fp> we do disagree on lots of technical points
2009-02-06 17:44 <panthera> as you probably know, i'm maintaining tinyerp in debian. and since 2005,
2009-02-06 17:44 <fp> but we never criticied tryton (and I will manage so that we don't do it)
2009-02-06 17:45 <bechamel> fp: and by the way this licence ( ask you to reproduce it on the documentation, can you tell me where to find it ?
2009-02-06 17:45 <panthera> all versions that were uploaded were completely free to debians understanding of free.
2009-02-06 17:45 <panthera> so i personally don't buy the 'openerp is not (fully) free' license wise.
2009-02-06 17:45 <fp> thanks.
2009-02-06 17:46 <fp> I just want to avoid people trying to pass this message
2009-02-06 17:46 <cedk> panthera: we don't speak about free but OpenSource
2009-02-06 17:46 <nicoe> panthera: I was wondering is the etiny case the same case as the firefox one ? Did you (or anyone from debian-legal) investigated this ?
2009-02-06 17:46 <panthera> free, as debian understands/defines it, includes 'OpenSource'.
2009-02-06 17:46 <panthera> nicoe: not yet, etiny is still on my todo.
2009-02-06 17:47 <cedk> panthera: so better word can be community
2009-02-06 17:48 <nicoe> nicoe: but the case with the logo is it the same problem that was there with firefox or is it completely different. At first I though it was the same but there seems to be a way to change the default behavior
2009-02-06 17:48 <nicoe> So I may review my judgment about the "freeness" of this licence
2009-02-06 17:50 <bechamel> from the licence "If you need commercial licence to remove this kind of restriction please contact us"
2009-02-06 17:50 <bechamel> from
2009-02-06 17:51 <fp> So I continue to emphasize that tryton always try to criticise Open ERP. Both products are good, so why criticising each others.
2009-02-06 17:51 <fp> ?
2009-02-06 17:51 <fp> I think it does not server the open source products
2009-02-06 17:51 <fp> it's better to criticise proprietary software if you prefer
2009-02-06 17:51 <fp> that's a real market
2009-02-06 17:51 <fp> fighting each others will not server both products
2009-02-06 17:52 <cedk> fp: it is you who see a fight
2009-02-06 17:52 <cedk> and it is not because a product if open source that it is good
2009-02-06 17:52 <fp> there is no fight because we don't reply. but you are often quite aggresive
2009-02-06 17:53 -!- ikks_(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 17:53 <fp> (and I remember you that you tried to pursue me on the tribunal :)
2009-02-06 17:53 <cedk> s/aggresive/critism/
2009-02-06 17:53 <cedk> fp: this is an other stuff and speak about that here
2009-02-06 17:53 <cedk> s/speak/don't speak/
2009-02-06 17:53 <bechamel> fp: I don't understand you, you attacked cedric and me personnaly and now you came here to talk honey about open source ideal
2009-02-06 17:53 <fp> really negative, and most of the time, I don't agree.
2009-02-06 17:54 <cedk> negative != aggresive
2009-02-06 17:54 <fp> I don't attack ? I just ask if we can be positive against both products ?
2009-02-06 17:55 <carlos> fp: I think bechamel talks about another conversation, at least I don't read that as he's taking current conversation as an attack
2009-02-06 17:55 <bechamel> fp: sorry but I don't trust you on this point, I'm not so stupid
2009-02-06 17:56 <fp> I think the best we have to do is to promote our softwares and reuse parts of each others
2009-02-06 17:56 <bechamel> fp: for me you only ask us to shut up, you don't care about fair open source collaboration
2009-02-06 17:56 <cedk> fp: if you respect our copyright wich was not the case may times
2009-02-06 17:57 <fp> critism will not help boths products (and if we reply to your criticts, this will become a fight)
2009-02-06 17:57 <fp> adempiere was a catastroph on this point for both compiere and openbravo due to their communication
2009-02-06 17:57 <bechamel> fp: we had to ask you a lot of times to put our copyright when tiny took our code, and you only change this when we put the copyright infigement page online
2009-02-06 17:57 <fp> the 3 products lost a lot of credibility
2009-02-06 17:57 <fp> I'd like to avoid this
2009-02-06 17:58 <cedk> fp: I don'T agree critism is always a chance to re-evaluation your point of view, you must take it like a chance
2009-02-06 17:59 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 18:00 <fp> sorry, but lots of the critics are not fair. And, most of the time, you try to convince that openerp has a 'stupid' approach
2009-02-06 18:01 <fp> We do not agree on lots of technical points, but we decided to not critics tryton but rather work and reuse your good points
2009-02-06 18:01 <cedk> fp: and we have arguments and discuss how to implement it in a better way
2009-02-06 18:01 <bechamel> why are you afraid of bad reputation? tiny is a so huge company with so huge customers , big dowloads, big user base, what harm a small project like tryton can do ?
2009-02-06 18:01 <fp> If you don't want to do the same I understand, sorry for disturbing.
2009-02-06 18:03 <cedk> we discuss to have better ways so of course we argument each other about the pro and the con
2009-02-06 18:03 <cedk> so if you find it aggresive whe we say: this is not a good way because this and this
2009-02-06 18:04 <cedk> we can not do anything for you
2009-02-06 18:04 <cedk> we are always openned to discussion and we change our minds when somebody confinse us
2009-02-06 18:05 <bechamel> fp: and I can tell you that our criticism are very soft IMHO, we could have been far more aggressive
2009-02-06 18:05 <cedk> bechamel: no way, we talk only about code and features
2009-02-06 18:07 <fp> Ok, bye.
2009-02-06 18:07 <fp> See you may be at Fosdem
2009-02-06 18:09 <cedk> and by the way the forum on seems broken
2009-02-06 18:10 <carlos> wow, I didn't know you had such huge conflict with fp
2009-02-06 18:10 <nicoe> cedk: too late he's gone ...
2009-02-06 18:10 <carlos> cedk: they are moving it from to so I guess something went wrong with the migration
2009-02-06 18:11 <cedk> carlos: like often
2009-02-06 18:11 <cedk> carlos: but fp will see this comment like an aggresive comment
2009-02-06 18:11 <cedk> :-)
2009-02-06 18:12 <cedk> nicoe: do you go finally to fosdem?
2009-02-06 18:13 <Timitos> the also have a irc chatlog on openerp now:
2009-02-06 18:13 <nicoe> Well as I said to bechamel yesterday : no it's my girlfriend's birthday on sunday
2009-02-06 18:14 <cedk> Timitos: with irclog2html also :-)
2009-02-06 18:14 <Timitos> cedk: yes
2009-02-06 18:15 <cedk> Timitos: but I said to Tiny people that the code of conduct when you log irc is to display in the topic
2009-02-06 18:15 <cedk> Timitos: but they don't care
2009-02-06 18:15 <nicoe> cedk: so I wont be there ... but if you happen to see Fabien give him a KISS (not a kiss) from me ;)
2009-02-06 18:16 <Timitos> cedk: don´t understand what you mean, but i think it is not so important for me to understand this
2009-02-06 18:16 <cedk> nicoe: what is the difference
2009-02-06 18:16 <bechamel> nicoe: what's a KISS ?
2009-02-06 18:16 <bechamel> Timitos: read the topic of the chan
2009-02-06 18:16 <nicoe> cedk, bechamel : Keep It Simple Stupid
2009-02-06 18:17 <nicoe> cedk, bechamel : it was just for the joke ...
2009-02-06 18:17 <cedk> Timitos: I want to say that freenode people say if you log a chan, announce it in the topic of the chan
2009-02-06 18:17 <Timitos> cedk: ah. now i understood. thx.
2009-02-06 18:17 <nicoe> cedk, bechamel : anyway, if I ever go to brussels (maybe late on sunday) I'll give you a call
2009-02-06 18:18 <cedk> Timitos: and by the way, when I ask if it will log the chan, they did not answer me
2009-02-06 18:19 <bechamel> we forgot to ask fp how will be used the mysterious certificate number
2009-02-06 18:19 <Timitos> cedk: when did you ask? perhaps they wanted to hold the info back until today
2009-02-06 18:19 <nicoe> Anyway goodbye everyone ... have a nice weekend @FOSDEM
2009-02-06 18:19 <cedk> Timitos: at the begining of the week
2009-02-06 18:19 <Timitos> bechamel: you can ask him on #openobject perhaps?
2009-02-06 18:20 <bechamel> Timitos: maybe it's too aggresive :)
2009-02-06 18:20 <Timitos> cedk: perhaps :-)
2009-02-06 18:20 <cedk> Timitos: we already ask on openerp-fr, but they didn't want to answer
2009-02-06 18:20 <cedk> Timitos: but it is our fault, we are to aggresif :-)
2009-02-06 18:20 <carlos> bechamel: I think that number is to identify the modules that are 'certified' and thus supported
2009-02-06 18:20 <carlos> but it's just a guess
2009-02-06 18:21 <bechamel> carlos: what prevent the customer to change it ?
2009-02-06 18:21 <cedk> carlos: yes, but the number seems to be randly generated
2009-02-06 18:21 <Timitos> cedk: i don´t mind about all that. we need to concentrate on tryton. this is my way of thinking
2009-02-06 18:21 <cedk> s/randly/randomly/
2009-02-06 18:21 <carlos> bechamel: well, I see it more as an ID more than a secret key
2009-02-06 18:21 <carlos> cedk: ^^^
2009-02-06 18:21 <cedk> Timitos: I was just asking to see if it will be interesting for Tryton
2009-02-06 18:22 <carlos> just like the UUID numbers
2009-02-06 18:22 <Timitos> cedk: i talked about the irc topic. i think you talked about the id topic now, didn´t you?
2009-02-06 18:22 <cedk> carlos: but for that you have the version number of the module
2009-02-06 18:22 <cedk> Timitos: yes
2009-02-06 18:29 <carlos> cedk: no idea, I'm just guessing ;-)
2009-02-06 18:30 <carlos> anyway, OpenERP is not using that field at all
2009-02-06 18:31 <cedk> carlos:
2009-02-06 18:31 <cedk> carlos: there is the code to generate a certificate
2009-02-06 18:34 <carlos> cedk: so it's just an ID for their new QA process
2009-02-06 18:36 <cedk> carlos: don't know, it is a very strange and obscure things
2009-02-06 18:36 <carlos> anyway, I don't think we need anything like that in Tryton
2009-02-06 18:37 <carlos> at least now
2009-02-06 18:45 <cedk> carlos: for sure
2009-02-06 18:46 <cedk> carlos: because we don't know what is the purpose of this
2009-02-06 18:51 <carlos> cedk: well, from what I see (seems like it's really used in latest openerp trunk), it's a unique ID for the addons
2009-02-06 19:05 -!- ikks(i=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 19:28 -!- juanfer(n=juanfer@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 20:03 -!- paola( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 20:09 <cristi_an> guys i just read the long discussion with fp
2009-02-06 20:10 <cristi_an> i do no tknwo you ,but from what i see the guy is peacefully
2009-02-06 20:20 <bechamel> cristi_an: he peacefully refused to answer our questions
2009-02-06 20:33 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 21:03 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 1522:049d59b06328 trytond/trytond/model/ ( Move _{update,rebuild}_tree from modelstorage to modeldb
2009-02-06 21:24 -!- johbo_( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 21:55 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 21:55 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 22:06 -!- ikks(i=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 22:13 -!- Gedd(n=ged@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 22:20 -!- vengfulsquirrel( has joined #tryton
2009-02-06 23:44 -!- ikks(i=igor@ has joined #tryton

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!