IRC logs of #tryton for Friday, 2009-04-03 #tryton log beginning Fri Apr 3 00:00:01 CEST 2009
2009-04-03 00:43 <CIA-48> ced roundup * #906/Access permissions to databases: [resolved] It is almost impossible to know if a database is suitable for a server except by running a complete update. The best way to separate da ...
2009-04-03 00:43 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 01:12 -!- juanfer(n=juanfer@ has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 01:41 <CIA-48> matb roundup * #906/Access permissions to databases: [chatting] *At least* the tables created by the system (server) should be in the version of the server. I think it is very well possible to tag a ...
2009-04-03 01:41 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 01:42 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 05:19 -!- yangoon( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 05:57 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 06:38 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 07:34 -!- nicoe( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 07:38 -!- sharkcz( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 08:01 <CIA-48> udono roundup * #921/Invoice Report not translated: [new] The Invoice report is not translated into german language. This is for all phrases in the report like "Invoice", "Description" but also for ...
2009-04-03 08:01 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 08:41 -!- racke(n=racke@ has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 08:43 <CIA-48> Timitos roundup * #919/problems with digits when entering account move lines: [resolved] i could not reproduce the error. so it seems to be fixed
2009-04-03 08:43 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 08:55 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@ has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 09:11 <CIA-48> udono roundup * #922/Invoice Report: Tax as sequence: [new] We have the new possibility to show taxes in invoice lines like footnotes. E.G.: Description Unit Price Qty Tax Amount Stuff ...
2009-04-03 09:11 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 09:12 -!- racke(n=racke@ has left #tryton
2009-04-03 09:18 <CIA-48> * r492 /wiki/ Two issues already fixed.
2009-04-03 09:38 -!- cedk(n=ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 09:50 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 09:50 -!- bechamel(n=user@ has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 10:02 -!- paola( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 10:30 <cedk> Timitos: I add the accounting date on invoice
2009-04-03 10:31 <cedk> Timitos: I think this functionnality is right and necessary
2009-04-03 11:25 <CIA-48> ced roundup * #918/Translation: items reappearing untranslated: [need-eg] Could you give the create_uid, write_uid of those records?
2009-04-03 11:25 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 11:29 <CIA-48> udono roundup * #921/Invoice Report not translated: [resolved] sorry, it is a customized invoice in an addon module...
2009-04-03 11:29 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 11:32 <cedk> Timitos: for the number of invoice which date do you think I need to take?
2009-04-03 11:33 <cedk> Timitos: for me, it is the invoice date
2009-04-03 11:42 <cedk> Timitos: ok, I call our accountance and the tax date must be the same than the account date
2009-04-03 11:42 -!- carlos(n=carlos@ has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 11:43 <Timitos> cedk: i was out of office. i am back right now
2009-04-03 11:50 <cedk> Timitos: I think that accounting date is only required for supplier invoice
2009-04-03 11:51 <cedk> Timitos: s/required/allowed/
2009-04-03 11:51 <Timitos> cedk: no. there are cases where accounting date is also needed for customer invoice. when the product is delivered in march and the invoice is written in april the accounting date should be in march.
2009-04-03 11:52 <cedk> Timitos: why do you create the invoice in april?
2009-04-03 11:52 <cedk> Timitos: and what do you do if march is closed?
2009-04-03 11:52 <CIA-48> matb roundup * #918/Translation: items reappearing untranslated: After database update all is correct: 497;"en_US";"You try to bypass an access rule! (Document type: %s)";"access_error";0;"You try to bypass an ...
2009-04-03 11:52 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 11:56 <Timitos> cedk: let me give you an example. think of a company doing transportation services. it is common that the invoice is written very late because of missing documents that need to be searched for all over the world. so the transport happens in january and the invoice can be written in april as all documents are available. this is common in this business. in this case the invoice date is in april and the accounting date must be in january. it is common that t
2009-04-03 11:57 <Timitos> cedk: if march is already closed i would do the move in the nearest open period.
2009-04-03 11:57 <cedk> Timitos: at which date?
2009-04-03 11:58 <cedk> Timitos: so ok, we keep accounting_date on both invoices
2009-04-03 11:59 <Timitos> cedk: as for tax authorities only the period is important you can choose to use the 1st day or the last day of the period. i think i would use the last day of period
2009-04-03 11:59 <cedk> Timitos: if we put a accounting_date, we let the user decide
2009-04-03 12:00 <Timitos> cedk: yes. this is the best way
2009-04-03 12:00 <cedk> Timitos: ok, I see what to do for account move
2009-04-03 12:00 <carlos> cedk: I think we don't use that in Spain, but I will need to check it to be sure. If we don't use it, I guess the system will work as it does now, right?
2009-04-03 12:00 <cedk> Timitos: but next issue is the numbering of invoice, we need a date
2009-04-03 12:01 <cedk> carlos: yes, the accounting_date will be optionnal, so if you leave it empty, it will use the invoice_date
2009-04-03 12:01 <Timitos> cedk: where do you need this. i do not understand exactly
2009-04-03 12:01 <cedk> Timitos: sequence for numbering invoice are stored on periods
2009-04-03 12:02 <carlos> ok
2009-04-03 12:02 <cedk> Timitos: so I need to find the right period, but I don't know which one?
2009-04-03 12:02 <Timitos> cedk: i will take a look on it. i need to think about
2009-04-03 12:03 <cedk> I think we should take the invoice_date
2009-04-03 12:04 <cedk> and allow to use sequence on closed period
2009-04-03 12:04 <Timitos> cedk: i think so too. but i am not quite sure
2009-04-03 12:04 <cedk> Timitos: here, we must keep the number serie depending of the invoice date
2009-04-03 12:05 <Timitos> cedk: i do not understand this completely because i haven´t used this before
2009-04-03 12:05 <cedk> Timitos: what don't you understand?
2009-04-03 12:06 <Timitos> cedk: i need to check the behavior first in a test db. i think this is better than let you explain it
2009-04-03 12:06 <cedk> Timitos: ok, I make the change now
2009-04-03 12:07 <Timitos> cedk: what about the date on tax lines? do i understand your comment from above (your call to your accountant) correct that you leave it out?
2009-04-03 12:07 <cedk> Timitos: yes, she say that it is the same date than the account move
2009-04-03 12:08 <Timitos> cedk: because we have here some cases where the tax date is the invoice date and is different from the account date. this is for supplier invoices only
2009-04-03 12:09 <cedk> Timitos: how is it possible?
2009-04-03 12:10 <cedk> Timitos: and what do it happen when you already send you tax report before you receive an invoice with a date before
2009-04-03 12:10 <Timitos> :-D i do not know any accounting software in germany that can handle this case correct.
2009-04-03 12:11 <Timitos> cedk: then you need to submit a changed tax report for the period
2009-04-03 12:11 <Timitos> i will try to explain the case
2009-04-03 12:14 <Timitos> in germany you will only get back vat of supplier invoices if you have a correct invoice. so the vat refund is connected to the invoice. and this is why taxes of supplier invoices can be only declared in period of the invoice date. but there is another rule that the costs of the supplier invoice must be recorded in the period of the product delivery (this is the delivery date or in our case the account date). so there is a difference for this case between
2009-04-03 12:15 <Timitos> the problem is: if we use the account date for the tax the tax will be declared too early and tax authorities do not like this :-)
2009-04-03 12:18 <cedk> Timitos: so if I understand well for you supplier taxes must use the invoice date for report
2009-04-03 12:19 <Timitos> cedk: yes
2009-04-03 12:20 <cedk> Timitos: so why not handling this on the tax report?
2009-04-03 12:23 <Timitos> cedk: this could be a solution. but will i be able to use the chart of Tax Codes? i think there would be different values. this could be confusing
2009-04-03 12:29 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 12:30 <cedk> Timitos: there is one thing that I still don't understand, how can you encode a supplier invoice before the delivery?
2009-04-03 12:30 <Timitos> cedk: for number the invoice date is the correct date.
2009-04-03 12:31 <Timitos> cedk: this is not the case. it is always encoded after delivery? where did i write this?
2009-04-03 12:31 <Timitos> s/?/.
2009-04-03 12:31 <cedk> Timitos: so the invoice date is after the delivery date (= accounting date)
2009-04-03 12:32 <Timitos> cedk: yes
2009-04-03 12:35 <cedk> Timitos: what is the frequency of tax report?
2009-04-03 12:36 <Timitos> cedk: by 3 month or monthly or by year. we have all cases here
2009-04-03 12:37 <cedk> Timitos: and much in the past can you make change in tax report?
2009-04-03 12:38 <Timitos> cedk: i can do this changes for any period if the fiscal year has not been closed.
2009-04-03 12:39 <cedk> Timitos: and what do it happen if the delivery date is in a closed period?
2009-04-03 12:39 -!- udono( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 12:41 <cedk> Timitos: and if we add a date on tax lines how do the user will know that there is a change in his tax report?
2009-04-03 12:41 <Timitos> cedk: in this case i cannot do i right. i would decide together with the accountant in which period it should be posted. one solution is to put it in the period nearest to the correct period. the other solution is to put it in the actual period
2009-04-03 12:44 <Timitos> cedk: first of all: we are discussing not to put the tax to early into the report but later. so normally for this cases the tax would be declared later than it would be with your solution when you use the account date.
2009-04-03 12:44 <cedk> Timitos: one thing I don't understand is that period are globally only for taxes (not for move) and here you want to by-pass it
2009-04-03 12:46 <Timitos> cedk: hm. so if period is only for taxes we need to think about if we can handle this in a different way.
2009-04-03 12:46 <cedk> Timitos: can it be fixed with moves on an adjustment period?
2009-04-03 12:48 <Timitos> cedk: the normal way to handle such things for closed periods is to open an adjustment period for this month and to do the changes there.
2009-04-03 12:48 <cedk> Timitos: so you could do it for the tax backward change
2009-04-03 12:49 <cedk> Timitos: and the tax.code report will work normally
2009-04-03 12:51 <Timitos> cedk: i need to read our discussion again.
2009-04-03 12:52 <cedk> Timitos: so globally you make a move with debit/credit but only tax lines at the date you want on a adjustment period
2009-04-03 12:52 <Timitos> cedk: would accounting date and period depend on each other or not?
2009-04-03 12:53 <cedk> Timitos: yes they depend except for adjustment period
2009-04-03 12:55 <Timitos> cedk: so for now i can add a account date to the invoice which is optional. this date will define the period where the move for the invoice will be created. right?
2009-04-03 12:55 <Timitos> so for our case this will work good for customer invoices
2009-04-03 12:57 <cedk> Timitos: yes
2009-04-03 13:01 <cedk> Timitos: and for the special case where you have to put backward a tax, you write two moves without credit/debit with the right dates and tax lines amount
2009-04-03 13:01 <cedk> Timitos: I guess this case doesn't happen often?
2009-04-03 13:01 <Timitos> cedk: when periods are only for taxes why is then period related to account.move? i know this is common but i think it is a allowed question
2009-04-03 13:02 <Timitos> cedk: this case happens in transport business very often for example
2009-04-03 13:02 <cedk> Timitos: it is "globally" :-)
2009-04-03 13:02 <cedk> Timitos: so if the case happens often for one business, I guess it is better to write a module that make the two moves automaticly
2009-04-03 13:03 <cedk> Timitos: as it seems to be only for Germany
2009-04-03 13:03 <Timitos> cedk: yes. i think it must be a custom module
2009-04-03 13:03 <cedk> Timitos: and the rules are so specific
2009-04-03 13:03 <Timitos> cedk: i would need to adjust move creation for supplier invoices
2009-04-03 13:03 <cedk> Timitos: as soon as we can fix it with moves
2009-04-03 13:04 <cedk> Timitos: you must create two new moves with each one one line
2009-04-03 13:04 <cedk> Timitos: it can not be handle on one move because the date is on the move
2009-04-03 13:04 <Timitos> cedk: yes. because of different periods
2009-04-03 13:05 <cedk> Timitos: yes also, the backward moves must be done on adjustment periods
2009-04-03 13:05 <cedk> Timitos: so we are aggreed?
2009-04-03 13:06 <Timitos> cedk: yes
2009-04-03 13:07 <Timitos> cedk: but i have another point :-D
2009-04-03 13:07 <cedk> Timitos: argg...
2009-04-03 13:07 <Timitos> cedk: why is relation between account.move.line and a One2Many?
2009-04-03 13:08 <cedk> Timitos: what do you want?
2009-04-03 13:09 <Timitos> cedk: i noticed this when i was testing the entering of account moves from the view 'open journal'
2009-04-03 13:09 <cedk> Timitos: one tax move line can be dispatched into more than one tax code
2009-04-03 13:09 <Timitos> i think that there is no use of more than one tax line on a account.move.line and i would like to have a better solution for entering the tax on journal
2009-04-03 13:10 <cedk> Timitos: in Belgium, we have some case where we must put the base amount in two codes
2009-04-03 13:11 <Timitos> shat a pity :-)
2009-04-03 13:11 <Timitos> s/shat/what
2009-04-03 13:11 <cedk> Timitos: you don't have this? It is when you refund invoice
2009-04-03 13:12 <Timitos> cedk: my problem is that entering account moves from journal is not really easy with this tax line relation
2009-04-03 13:12 <Timitos> cedk: no. we do not have this.
2009-04-03 13:12 <cedk> Timitos: you can put default tax on account
2009-04-03 13:12 <Timitos> cedk: how?
2009-04-03 13:13 <cedk> Timitos: on account form
2009-04-03 13:13 <Timitos> cedk: with a custom module?
2009-04-03 13:13 <cedk> Timitos: no
2009-04-03 13:13 <cedk> Timitos: open account form
2009-04-03 13:14 <cedk> Timitos: I just though that it will be possible to create a wizard that take the current line and apply selected tax on it
2009-04-03 13:14 <Timitos> ah. i will test.
2009-04-03 13:15 <Timitos> cedk: so is it already working? or not?
2009-04-03 13:15 <Timitos> cedk: why a wizard? isn´t it more a on_change action?
2009-04-03 13:17 <cedk> Timitos: default tax on account is working
2009-04-03 13:18 <cedk> Timitos: it must be a wizard because there is no field to store taxes on move line
2009-04-03 13:20 <Timitos> cedk: i try to use the default tax. but there is not tax line created automaticly but only a account move line with this tax
2009-04-03 13:20 <Timitos> s/not/no
2009-04-03 13:20 <Timitos> cedk: stop. i think i forgot something
2009-04-03 13:21 <cedk> Timitos: you must have tax code on tax
2009-04-03 13:21 <cedk> Timitos: but I think there is an issue as it don't fill the code on tax lines
2009-04-03 13:22 <Timitos> cedk: yes it is not working
2009-04-03 13:38 <CIA-48> C?dric Krier <> default * 421:2086f0ce6678 account/ Fix typo in _compute_tax_lines
2009-04-03 13:38 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 13:38 <cedk> Timitos: fixed with this changeset
2009-04-03 13:40 <cedk> Timitos: last question, could we create a customer invoice with an invoice date in closed period?
2009-04-03 13:47 <Timitos> cedk: if the account date is in a open period perhaps. but for me account date should be always before invoice date and so i think that this case should not happen because if account date is before invoice date the period for account date will be before the period of invoice date an therefor it should be closed too.
2009-04-03 13:49 <cedk> Timitos: in my talk with our accountance, it was clear that account date can be after the invoice date for supplier invoice
2009-04-03 13:50 <cedk> Timitos: it is when you recieve an invoice with a date that is in the previous period that as closed, so you can only make your account move in the current period
2009-04-03 13:51 <cedk> Timitos: and you make a account move on adjustment period to correct
2009-04-03 13:51 <Timitos> cedk: ok. this is good
2009-04-03 13:52 <cedk> Timitos: so I propose to check that the period is still open at the invoice date only for customer invoice and supplier invoice we don't care
2009-04-03 13:53 <Timitos> cedk: sound reasonable
2009-04-03 13:54 <cedk> Timitos: ok, I think we have done all the issues
2009-04-03 13:54 <Timitos> cedk: i hope so.
2009-04-03 13:55 <Timitos> cedk: the tax lines are still not working for me
2009-04-03 13:55 <cedk> Timitos: yes, for our knowledge :-)
2009-04-03 14:03 -!- ctp( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 14:03 <CIA-48> C?dric Krier <> default * 422:585a31836be8 account/ Add docstring and param test_state to find on account.period
2009-04-03 14:03 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 14:06 <CIA-48> C?dric Krier <> default * 316:016aae507e32 account_invoice/ Fix typo in default value of copy to reset the invoice_date to today
2009-04-03 14:06 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 14:06 <CIA-48> C?dric Krier <> default * 317:9458bda9d384 account_invoice/ ( invoice.xml): Add accounting_date on invoice
2009-04-03 14:06 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 14:06 <cedk> Timitos: ok, you can test it
2009-04-03 14:18 <cedk> udono: for issue922, did you change the language of the party?
2009-04-03 14:19 -!- enlightx(n=enlightx@ has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 14:19 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 14:23 <CIA-48> Timitos roundup * #923/default taxes of account for entering account move lines not working: [new] there are still no tax lines added when i enter new account move lines from view 'open journal'.
2009-04-03 14:23 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 14:24 <CIA-48> ced roundup * #923/default taxes of account for entering account move lines not working: [need-eg] On which type of journal do you use?
2009-04-03 14:24 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 14:26 <CIA-48> Timitos roundup * #923/default taxes of account for entering account move lines not working: it is the standard expense journal
2009-04-03 14:26 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 14:31 <CIA-48> Timitos roundup * #923/default taxes of account for entering account move lines not working: [resolved] sorry. its working now. i was on a different db.
2009-04-03 14:31 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 14:55 -!- enlightx_( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 15:19 -!- gremly(n=gremly@ has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 15:45 -!- gremly(n=gremly@ has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 15:47 -!- juanfer(n=juanfer@ has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 17:46 <CIA-48> C?dric Krier <> default * 1257:cd7ff2c152c3 tryton/tryton/gui/window/view_form/model/ Prevent signal when calling remove in set_on_change of O2M
2009-04-03 17:46 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 17:51 <CIA-48> C?dric Krier <> default * 318:69e5ff75f42a account_invoice/ Update taxes only for draft invoices
2009-04-03 17:51 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 17:51 <CIA-48> C?dric Krier <> default * 319:bf5a49c3e83b account_invoice/ ( invoice.xml): Add tax on invoice tax and use it for key instead of description for issue922
2009-04-03 17:51 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 17:51 <CIA-48> ced roundup * #922/Invoice Report: Tax as sequence: [resolved] Fix with changeset bf5a49c3e83b
2009-04-03 17:51 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 17:55 -!- vengfulsquirrel( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 17:56 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 18:01 -!- MechtiIde( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 18:03 -!- MechtiIde( has left #tryton
2009-04-03 18:26 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 19:02 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/ has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 20:13 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 20:44 <cristi_an> cedk: from where do you have svg files ?
2009-04-03 20:45 <cristi_an> and client works with those ? not png ?
2009-04-03 20:47 <cedk> cristi_an: I don't understand
2009-04-03 20:47 <cedk> cristi_an: svg files are under pixmaps folder
2009-04-03 20:48 <cristi_an> cedk: thx...
2009-04-03 20:48 <cristi_an> cedk: i asked who did them for tryton
2009-04-03 20:49 <cedk> cristi_an: some comes from tango project and other it is bechamel
2009-04-03 20:51 -!- gremly(n=gremly@ has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 20:57 -!- saxa( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 21:08 -!- paola( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 21:45 <juanfer> Hello, I have problem seen one module in the list of modules, the module is account_invoice_history, I just download it and left in the direcotry .../trytond/modules/account_invoice_history, and doesn't appear.
2009-04-03 21:46 <yangoon> juanfer: did you restart the server?
2009-04-03 21:46 <juanfer> yes
2009-04-03 21:46 <juanfer> and of course the client
2009-04-03 21:47 <juanfer> it is a bug?
2009-04-03 21:47 <yangoon> juanfer: do you have correct permissions on the module dir, so that the server can read it?
2009-04-03 21:47 <juanfer> hold on
2009-04-03 21:48 <juanfer> yes
2009-04-03 21:48 <juanfer> The same as other modules.
2009-04-03 21:49 <yangoon> juanfer: could you start the server on the console with -v and paste the output to a pastebin?
2009-04-03 21:49 <juanfer> holdon
2009-04-03 21:53 <juanfer>
2009-04-03 21:55 <juanfer> and my modules directory
2009-04-03 21:55 <juanfer> Could I report the bug?
2009-04-03 21:55 <yangoon> juanfer: which distro?
2009-04-03 21:55 <juanfer> Debian
2009-04-03 21:56 <yangoon> juanfer: you have a conflict between two installations
2009-04-03 21:56 <yangoon> juanfer: one is in /home/juanfe/tryton/trytond/trytond
2009-04-03 21:56 <yangoon> the other is in /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/
2009-04-03 21:57 <yangoon> juanfer: I had this already:
2009-04-03 21:57 <juanfer> But I never had one there
2009-04-03 21:57 <yangoon> juanfer: I think you iinstalled the debian packages
2009-04-03 21:58 <juanfer> never
2009-04-03 21:58 <carlos> juanfer: did you executed setup install inside any Tryton module?
2009-04-03 21:59 <yangoon> juanfer: then you probably did one install with
2009-04-03 21:59 <juanfer> ah, this is the problem
2009-04-03 21:59 <juanfer> carlos is right, it was I never do with acount_invoice_history.
2009-04-03 21:59 <juanfer> never did
2009-04-03 22:00 <juanfer> I will try
2009-04-03 22:00 <carlos> juanfer: you don't really need an install
2009-04-03 22:00 <yangoon> juanfer: you should remove one of both installations, otherwise you will get a mix
2009-04-03 22:00 <carlos> if you execute it from within you home, you only need the modules inside trytond/modules directory
2009-04-03 22:01 <yangoon> carlos: my experience is other
2009-04-03 22:02 <juanfer> carlos is right it work
2009-04-03 22:03 <yangoon> juanfer: good luck. you have been warned;)
2009-04-03 22:04 <juanfer> cd trytond/modules/account_invoice_history; python install
2009-04-03 22:05 <juanfer> yangoon, but I never use the debian package for tryton, so is different, but I will take in account, if some day I do
2009-04-03 22:05 <juanfer> thx both
2009-04-03 22:05 <carlos> yangoon: I mean that is easier to use only the ones in his home directory
2009-04-03 22:06 <yangoon> carlos: sure
2009-04-03 22:06 <carlos> yangoon: having a mix is a good way to have problems
2009-04-03 22:06 <yangoon> carlos: sure
2009-04-03 22:06 <carlos> as you already stated ;-)
2009-04-03 22:06 <yangoon> carlos: I have not yet recovered all my databases from this mix... and probably will never do
2009-04-03 22:07 <carlos> oh, so it affected a production system? bad thing...
2009-04-03 22:08 <yangoon> carlos: no, not production, gladly
2009-04-03 22:10 <carlos> pffew...
2009-04-03 22:10 <carlos> :-D
2009-04-03 22:10 <yangoon> carlos: I have to investigate further, but it seems really dangerous to have a mix of setup methods
2009-04-03 22:10 <carlos> yeah, I agree
2009-04-03 22:11 <yangoon> carlos: running stable parallel to dev version: no problem when running just from source directory
2009-04-03 22:11 <carlos> It may be a problem for people trying to migrate to a new version and have two versions installed at the same time
2009-04-03 22:11 <yangoon> but running dev version from sources and having installed stable with is dangerous
2009-04-03 22:12 <carlos> yangoon: in that case, is not a problem only if neither are in the PYTHONPATH
2009-04-03 22:12 <carlos> right
2009-04-03 22:12 <carlos> the problem is that modules are found in PYTHONPATH
2009-04-03 22:14 <yangoon> yes, I didn't try so far to (re)set PYTHONPATH for such instances, but I will give it a try some time
2009-04-03 22:55 -!- ctp( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 22:56 -!- ctp( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 23:20 -!- vengfulsquirrel( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 23:28 -!- tekknokrat( has left #tryton
2009-04-03 23:29 <CIA-48> * r493 /wiki/ Added the initial set of data structures for chart of accounts.
2009-04-03 23:29 -!- essich( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 23:29 <CIA-48> * r494 /wiki/ Edited wiki page through web user interface.
2009-04-03 23:29 <CIA-48> * r495 /wiki/ Added description to some fields
2009-04-03 23:30 <CIA-48> C?dric Krier <> default * 1708:0bd0feea1d79 trytond/trytond/modules/ Fix get_module_list if there is no pkg_resources
2009-04-03 23:30 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 23:45 <cedk> yangoon: did you test the patches for issue915?
2009-04-03 23:47 <CIA-48> C?dric Krier <> default * 1709:190a74359aef trytond/trytond/ir/ Prevent to delete not xml error message for issue918
2009-04-03 23:47 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 23:48 <CIA-48> ced roundup * #918/Translation: items reappearing untranslated: [resolved] Fix with changeset 190a74359aef
2009-04-03 23:48 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 23:50 <yangoon> cedk: I don't have python 2.6 running myself, but I have forwarded the patch to the user, who had the issue and likely will test it
2009-04-03 23:50 <yangoon> cedk: on python 2.5 no issue with the patch
2009-04-03 23:51 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2009-04-03 23:52 <cedk> yangoon: it will be great to have feedback soon to have the patch for the release
2009-04-03 23:54 <yangoon> cedk: I know, I think he will do his best
2009-04-03 23:54 <yangoon> perhaps someone other runs opensuse 11.1?
2009-04-03 23:54 <cedk> yangoon: he must test also ssl connection
2009-04-03 23:55 <CIA-48> C?dric Krier <> default * 1710:3b44953dde22 trytond/trytond/ir/ Don't test write_uid when updating/importing translation for issue872
2009-04-03 23:55 <CIA-48>
2009-04-03 23:56 <CIA-48> ced roundup * #872/Translation: translated items reappearing as fuzzy: I hope this is fixed with changeset 3b44953dde22
2009-04-03 23:56 <CIA-48>

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!