IRC logs of #tryton for Monday, 2010-06-28 #tryton log beginning Mon Jun 28 00:00:01 CEST 2010
2010-06-28 05:18 -!- yangoon( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 07:01 -!- Prak_OL(~saurabh@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 07:27 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 08:17 -!- Timitos(~timitos@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 08:45 -!- paepke( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 08:47 -!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 08:50 -!- digitalsatori(~tony@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 09:13 -!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 09:39 <Timitos> cedk: hi
2010-06-28 09:39 <cedk> Timitos: hi
2010-06-28 09:39 <Timitos> cedk: about the voting: was it planned to answer with yes/no? i thought is was / ?
2010-06-28 09:39 <Timitos> +1/-1?
2010-06-28 09:41 <cedk> Timitos: yes it was +1/-1/0
2010-06-28 09:41 <cedk> Timitos: people can not read instruction
2010-06-28 09:42 <Timitos> cedk: so how to go on with this?
2010-06-28 09:43 <cedk> Timitos: I will replace yes by +1 and no by -1
2010-06-28 09:43 <Timitos> cedk: ok. so i will answer with +1/-1/0
2010-06-28 09:44 <cedk> Timitos: yes it was the instruction
2010-06-28 09:46 <Timitos> cedk: it would be better to put the instruction into the voting email next time
2010-06-28 10:03 <yangoon> cedk: and to put 'human readable' options as in real life. Or do you answer in real life +1, if you are asked a question?;)
2010-06-28 10:05 <cedk> yangoon: for voting the answer must be indisputable
2010-06-28 10:07 <yangoon> cedk: what's the problem with yes/no in this respect?
2010-06-28 10:08 <cedk> yangoon: and if wanted an other protocol you should discute it previous week
2010-06-28 10:10 -!- bechamel( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 10:12 <yangoon> cedk: you didn't include most proposals in the final vote, so the 'protocol' of the whole procedure is not very clear...
2010-06-28 10:13 <cedk> yangoon: I have seen any proposal
2010-06-28 10:14 -!- FWiesing( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 10:14 <yangoon> cedk: what about Message-ID: <> ?
2010-06-28 10:18 <cedk> yangoon: you don't make law with wish
2010-06-28 10:19 <yangoon> cedk: yes, finally you make law without discussion
2010-06-28 10:20 <cedk> yangoon: you propose to make that are wishes this make no sense
2010-06-28 10:21 <yangoon> cedk: it makes much sense in a community to communicate the *wished* behavior, but we should have discussed this on the mailing list, not here
2010-06-28 10:22 <yangoon> cedk: so you can express all musts additionally as wishes to find the wished behavior, refer to the email of dba
2010-06-28 10:30 <bechamel> yangoon: do you have an url for ?
2010-06-28 10:35 <yangoon> bechamel:
2010-06-28 10:38 <bechamel> yangoon: maybe it's a stupid question but how is it possible to view this message if I only know the message-id you gave ?
2010-06-28 10:40 <yangoon> bechamel: sorry, I am an old usenet user, and on news the msg-id is a unique key to refer to posts
2010-06-28 10:44 <bechamel> yangoon: ok
2010-06-28 10:45 <bechamel> yangoon, cedk: what about submitting a message with should on each rule on the voting thread ?
2010-06-28 10:48 <yangoon> bechamel: ack for me naturally, but I would indeed post each question as must *and* should, because you get like this wished behavior *and* rules to enforce
2010-06-28 10:50 <bechamel> yangoon: Everybody is already voting for each point separately
2010-06-28 10:51 <bechamel> yangoon: imo the porblem with SHOULD is that we must define what happens if one SHOULD is not enforeced
2010-06-28 10:55 <yangoon> bechamel: a patch/contribution for me is valid if it fulfils all MUSTS
2010-06-28 10:55 <paepke> bechamel, well i voted mostly -1 cause i disagree with "must".
2010-06-28 10:56 <paepke> thats how i read that question.
2010-06-28 10:56 <yangoon> paepke: +1
2010-06-28 10:56 <bechamel> paepke: so what happens if someone submit a patch that do not respect the rules ?
2010-06-28 10:57 <paepke> bechamel, if all of the stuff ist should, that guy could not break the rules? don't understand exactly your question.
2010-06-28 10:58 <yangoon> bechamel: that question was in your proposal I know
2010-06-28 10:59 <yangoon> bechamel: I would have appreciated to see your questions (formatted as single questions) in the final vote, too
2010-06-28 11:02 <bechamel> iirc the only reaction to my proposal is Timitos who says that I was breaking the definitions (and no positive reaction)
2010-06-28 11:04 <bechamel> paepke: what i mean is that if everything is formulated as "must", it's cristal clear: if a submition is not valid then its rejected
2010-06-28 11:06 <bechamel> paepke: but is the rules are formulated whith "should" what must be done with invalid submitions ? if they are also rejected, rules must be written with "must"'s
2010-06-28 11:06 <bechamel> s/but is/but if/
2010-06-28 11:06 <yangoon> bechamel: it was me who answered your mail, and yes, I just wanted to make clear your questions and the procedure
2010-06-28 11:07 <paepke> bechamel, in my perfect world (tm) the guys who submit patches are communicating with you.
2010-06-28 11:07 <yangoon> bechamel: shoulds are not enforced, no need to change anything on the contribution
2010-06-28 11:07 <paepke> bechamel, processes kills innovation.
2010-06-28 11:08 <paepke> bechamel, agree with yangoon if they are "should" they would be accepted.
2010-06-28 11:08 <yangoon> bechamel: musts are enforced and you can create rules for handling of patches, that don't match all musts
2010-06-28 11:09 <yangoon> bechamel: as such I understand your mail
2010-06-28 11:09 <paepke> dba, mentioned in a mail: there is one guy at one of his projects he would miss. and he is not using the rules you want to enforce.
2010-06-28 11:09 <paepke> sorry, dba mentiones, but the post should go to bechamel.
2010-06-28 11:10 <yangoon> bechamel: paepke just to throw in: why must a contributor have an email at all?
2010-06-28 11:10 <yangoon> for me there is no need
2010-06-28 11:10 <yangoon> thats why i have to answer almost all questions with no
2010-06-28 11:11 <paepke> yangoon, imho its good to have an cummunication channel to the contributor. do you know some developer which want to hide the mail-address (or do not have one?)
2010-06-28 11:12 <yangoon> paepke: of course, it is good, but is it a must?
2010-06-28 11:12 <yangoon> email is just as futile as your home address
2010-06-28 11:13 <yangoon> paepke: and we don't discuss here the usual habit of a contributor, but the rules, the project enforces on those
2010-06-28 11:15 <bechamel> if everything is anonymous, it's not possible to build trust between peoples
2010-06-28 11:16 <yangoon> bechamel: still another question, but has nothing to do with patch format
2010-06-28 11:21 <bechamel> of course we are talking about anonymity, the email adress is there to identify contributors (and that why it must not be a collective adress)
2010-06-28 11:22 <paepke> yangoon, bechamel, a little bit. we dropped the need of signing the patches with pgp or something similar, which could bring that trust. on the other hand it would lock out some guys which don't use that. imho that would be bad.
2010-06-28 11:24 <paepke> bechamel, i agree with sharoon, about the email-address as i see it as communication channel to the contributor. and that could be a company with a common email-address
2010-06-28 11:24 <bechamel> so everybody agree that using pgp is an ideal (but cumbersome) solution, but nobody agree on the MUST's ?
2010-06-28 11:25 <yangoon> bechamel: exactly, +1
2010-06-28 11:26 <paepke> bechamel, +1
2010-06-28 11:26 <yangoon> and contribution to the project for me is nore important than identification of people
2010-06-28 11:27 <paepke> yangoon, +1
2010-06-28 11:27 <yangoon> if someone wants to enforce his copyright, he *will* provide satisfying criteria
2010-06-28 11:28 <paepke> bechamel, what was the initial need of that rules? law/copyright or security?
2010-06-28 11:28 <yangoon> paepke:
2010-06-28 11:30 <paepke> yangoon, thanks. i read that thread, but forget about it.
2010-06-28 11:31 <cedk> if the rules are made of 'should' then there is no need of rules because anybody can break it
2010-06-28 11:32 <cedk> so what you express all is that you don't want rules
2010-06-28 11:32 <cedk> so you don't care about what is coming in the repository
2010-06-28 11:33 <bechamel> "if someone wants to enforce his copyright, he *will* provide ..." -> this is an important stuff, so one can define each rule with a SHOULD, and the concequence of not observing them is: the copyright (if there is one) MAY be dropped
2010-06-28 11:33 <yangoon> bechamel: how do you want to enforce copyright for anonymous?
2010-06-28 11:33 <yangoon> bechamel: it is non existent
2010-06-28 11:34 <cedk> the voting is not about copyright at all
2010-06-28 11:34 <cedk> this is two different topics so don't mix them
2010-06-28 11:35 <paepke> cedk, i voted for having real name, a mail address and so on (see my post on google groups). i just disagree at some points. having a rule set is good. I don't like either commits with root <root@localhost>
2010-06-28 11:35 <yangoon> "cedk: so you don't care about what is coming in the repository" -> nope
2010-06-28 11:35 <bechamel> what I want to say since the beginning is that MUST is ok alone, SHOULD is not ok if not followed by a MAY (that describe what happens if the rule is not respected)
2010-06-28 11:35 <paepke> cedk, there is and there will be a quality check of imported patches at least on codereview?
2010-06-28 11:37 <cedk> paepke: yes, but if someone (not you) propose a patch with per example Paepke as name and your email address for guys that voted against the rules, we should not reject the patch
2010-06-28 11:38 <yangoon> cedk: it is the task of the maintainers/comitters to check for the quality of the contributions, but quality of the patch must not depend on the existance of an email address in the patch
2010-06-28 11:39 <paepke> cedk, imho sharoon mentioned a good point: the contributor, which leaves the company which payed as sallary for that patch, (maybe) don't want to be responsible anymore for the patch. but the company will. so thats why i vote for allowing a common company mail-address with a real name.
2010-06-28 11:39 <cedk> yangoon: I don't speak about the quality
2010-06-28 11:40 <cedk> paepke: re-read the GPL, there is no responsability
2010-06-28 11:40 <cedk> paepke: the goal for individual email address is to be able to speak to the guy who wrote the code and not to a marketing pool
2010-06-28 11:41 <cedk> paepke: email address in patch is not the place for advertise
2010-06-28 11:41 <yangoon> cedk: if you want to avoid falsificates there is no other mean than gpg signature, and that is for me (at least at the moment) overkill
2010-06-28 11:42 <cedk> yangoon: I don't want that and gpg doen't help because you must have first trust in someone
2010-06-28 11:42 <cedk> yangoon: all I want is clear rule on this point to be able to accept/reject patch without infinite discussion
2010-06-28 11:42 <paepke> cedk, agree with GPL about responsibility, but in real life you talk to the guys. thats what i tried to make clear.
2010-06-28 11:43 <cedk> yangoon: because it is clear that somes will try to hijack the project
2010-06-28 11:43 <cedk> paepke: no problem to use an unique email address only for Tryton contribution and if you don't want anymore receiving email on this topic, drop this email
2010-06-28 11:44 -!- Prak_OL(~saurabh@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 11:45 <paepke> cedk, well, i understand to have the internal mail-address of the guy inside the company. not the info@. but there are bigger companies where teams, quality managers or ticket systems to solve problems or communications with patches.
2010-06-28 11:46 <cedk> paepke: look which email addresses of guys working on RFC (CalDAV per example)?
2010-06-28 11:47 <cedk> paepke: people from apple uses their own email address
2010-06-28 11:48 <cedk> by the way, I find it more compatible with the free-software philosophy to recongnize individual
2010-06-28 11:48 <cedk> paepke: don't forget who will use this email, the maintainers and not the end-users
2010-06-28 11:48 <cedk> so it is principaly for me this email address :-)
2010-06-28 11:49 <paepke> cedk, what about this idea: only allow contributions with real-name mailaddresses, and some companies can assign to have a trusted common mail-address for submitting patches? - its more bureaucratic overhead.
2010-06-28 11:49 <cedk> others will submit issue on roundup that is all and not submit it to the bug tracker of any external company
2010-06-28 11:50 <cedk> paepke: no, I want to speak to the *real* guy who wrote the code and not any proxy
2010-06-28 11:50 <paepke> cedk, agree that endusers will probably never send mails about a specific change set ;-)
2010-06-28 11:54 <yangoon> cedk: if there are issues with a patch and you cannot speak to the originator, you can just ignore it
2010-06-28 11:57 <cedk> yangoon: of course, but I don't want to spend time to find that the email is black hole or is a proxy guys which don't know about what I'm talking
2010-06-28 11:57 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 11:57 <yangoon> cedk: there is absolutely no mean to avoid this, even with thousand musts
2010-06-28 11:58 <paepke> cedk, but the companies which have a common address could have a good procedure to give you a better / faster answer about the piece of code, than a special developer. maybe the technical project leader?
2010-06-28 11:58 <cedk> paepke: no, because I need to talk to the guy who have think about the code
2010-06-28 11:59 <cedk> paepke: the kind of question will be: why did you do this this way instead of this one?
2010-06-28 12:00 <cedk> paepke: the project leader will be the sender
2010-06-28 12:02 <paepke> cedk, what about the policy inside a company: no developer should ever communicate with an external guy? always through any ticket system.
2010-06-28 12:03 <paepke> cedk, if you will enforce that you will provoke that some commitors will fake a realname or all commits behind a company will look like it comes from one person. developers like to break the system ;-)
2010-06-28 12:05 <yangoon> paepke: exactly, rules htat you cannot enforce are useless
2010-06-28 12:05 <paepke> i totally understand youre point what you wants. but i disagree that forcing an individual mailaddress will help you with youre needs.
2010-06-28 12:09 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 12:10 <Mithrandir> asking politely sounds like a better way than trying to force it, unless you're going to say "no gmail addresses", which might well be what some people will use.
2010-06-28 12:17 <bechamel> Mithrandir: a gmail adress is not bad, is ok, but or are not
2010-06-28 12:18 <Mithrandir> bechamel: how about or ""?
2010-06-28 12:20 <bechamel> Mithrandir: they can be considered ok as long as there are no problem with them
2010-06-28 12:22 <Mithrandir> it becomes a bit cumbersome if you're trying to work out whether there exists a company called iayaew, tho
2010-06-28 12:23 <bechamel> Mithrandir: it's like one of my teacher said: it's ok to cheat as long as you are not caught :)
2010-06-28 12:26 <bechamel> defining rules and enforcing them are two different things
2010-06-28 12:27 <Mithrandir> defining rules that can't be enforced is silly.
2010-06-28 12:31 <bechamel> Mithrandir: except that everyone as agreed (implicitly) on the voting mechanism, while this voting mechanism can also be challenged with fake emails
2010-06-28 12:33 <bechamel> so what the solution ? just stop talking/voting and let cedk dictate everthing (because he can not be sure who are behind the nick on this channel and who are behind the email on the mailing list)
2010-06-28 12:33 -!- mr_amit(~amit@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 12:36 <yangoon> no need to dictate anything. just ignore patches, that are stuck, because originator (is not reachable|does not respond|whatever)
2010-06-28 12:40 <bechamel> yangoon: what if this patch is interesting ? should the patch be applied with this fake/non-responding email adress ?
2010-06-28 12:42 <yangoon> as I said, I am first of all interested in good code, so yes
2010-06-28 12:42 <Mithrandir> bechamel: there's no guarantee that an email address will work three months after it last worked anyway..
2010-06-28 12:42 <Mithrandir> people leave all the time
2010-06-28 12:44 <bechamel> yangoon: and as I said the name/email shoud be dropped and replaced by a correct email/adress (the maintainer or somebody that managed or reviewed the patch after the submition)
2010-06-28 12:45 <bechamel> Mithrandir: but a valid email has more chance to work in 3 month that a fake one
2010-06-28 12:47 <bechamel> the name on the patch is not there only for copyright but also to be able to talk with someone if a bug is discovered later
2010-06-28 12:49 <bechamel> I'm thinking about people who send a patch from time to time but never answer of something goes wrong later
2010-06-28 12:49 <yangoon> bechamel: if someone wants to contribute anonymously we should accept it
2010-06-28 12:50 <bechamel> writing the code is half of the work, maintaining it is the other half
2010-06-28 12:50 <Mithrandir> if I submit a patch, that doesn't mean I volunteer to maintain that piece of code forever more.
2010-06-28 12:50 <yangoon> Mithrandir: +1
2010-06-28 12:51 <bechamel> Mithrandir: if your patch is very big, it's like a poisoned gift
2010-06-28 12:52 <Mithrandir> bechamel: no. Don't merge code you don't understand.
2010-06-28 12:52 <Mithrandir> this is why the kernel has subsystem maintainers, people who have volunteered to maintain a piece of the kernel on an on-going basis.
2010-06-28 12:53 <Mithrandir> ditto for driver maintainers, they
2010-06-28 12:53 <Mithrandir> 're responsible for that driver.
2010-06-28 12:54 <bechamel> Mithrandir: and those maintainers are well-identified isn't it ?
2010-06-28 12:54 <Mithrandir> and in tryton, you'd have somebody volunteering to maintain modules or subsystems and not rely on random patch submitters.
2010-06-28 12:54 <bechamel> yangoon: one can stay anonymous while having a unique non-fake email adress
2010-06-28 12:54 <Mithrandir> I don't think there's a policy about them, apart from them being responsive and reading whatever they've published as their email address.
2010-06-28 12:55 <Mithrandir> saying "you must have a working email address in order to maintain tryton modules/subsystems" is a whole different kettle of fish to saying "we won't accept patches unless we think you're using your personal email".
2010-06-28 12:55 <Mithrandir> and while you might not be trying to say the latter, it's what at least my ears have been hearing.
2010-06-28 12:56 <bechamel> Mithrandir: yes, so maybe we need some volunters to be responsible for those anonymous contribution
2010-06-28 12:57 <bechamel> a nurse team for orphan patches :D
2010-06-28 12:57 <Mithrandir> why wouldn't that be part of the responsibility of whoever maintains the module those patches touch?
2010-06-28 12:59 <bechamel> does torvald accepts patches from if there are no kernel maintainer to review it ?
2010-06-28 13:01 <Mithrandir> I don't see why he would not.
2010-06-28 13:03 <bechamel> Mithrandir: btw there are no such "module maintainer" currently, except for the localized accouting modules
2010-06-28 13:04 <Mithrandir> no, then it falls back to "don't merge code you don't understand/are willing to maintain onwards"
2010-06-28 13:04 <Mithrandir> relying on random patch submitters is going to end up with people having egg on their face.
2010-06-28 13:05 <bechamel> this is why it's important to know who is submitting the patch
2010-06-28 13:06 <Mithrandir> judge the patch, not the submitter.
2010-06-28 13:08 <cedk> if we don't find an agrement, I will do the rule case per case
2010-06-28 13:08 <cedk> but I found it was better to have clear rules
2010-06-28 13:09 <cedk> about the maintainance, it is free software nobody is required to do any kind of maintaince
2010-06-28 13:10 <Mithrandir> it's less about required to and more about what you expect of people.
2010-06-28 13:11 <cedk> Mithrandir: I except to be able to communicate with them
2010-06-28 13:11 <cedk> directly
2010-06-28 13:13 <Mithrandir> while it's nice to be able to, in reality, having that expectation will leave you unhappy every now and then.
2010-06-28 13:14 <cedk> Mithrandir: I think I don't want code from people that doesn't want to talk
2010-06-28 13:14 <Mithrandir> cedk: you don't want code from people who might ever change jobs either? :-P
2010-06-28 13:15 <cedk> Mithrandir: it is not what I said
2010-06-28 13:15 <cedk> Mithrandir: if I can communicate with them when they submit patches
2010-06-28 13:33 <paepke> away
2010-06-28 14:11 -!- ikks(~ikks@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 14:14 -!- mr_amit(~amit@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 14:44 -!- Mayank_OL(~openlabs@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 15:41 <Mayank_OL> I to pass some values in context in an record for model 'ir.action.act_window' , the context values are passed but not recieved in the wizard.
2010-06-28 15:41 <Mayank_OL> can someone tell me how can i pass values to context from python
2010-06-28 15:45 <cedk> Mayank_OL: if you can prevent to use context, it is better
2010-06-28 15:46 <Mayank_OL> cedk: i wanted to send id of a record in context ,so that it can be used.
2010-06-28 15:47 <cedk> Mayank_OL: but you have it in data
2010-06-28 15:48 <Mayank_OL> cedk: data will have id of parent record, but i require id of the model from which i am creating action.
2010-06-28 15:51 <cedk> Mayank_OL: you can not
2010-06-28 15:51 <Mayank_OL> cedk: is there some other way to pass it
2010-06-28 15:53 <cedk> Mayank_OL: no
2010-06-28 15:54 <cedk> Mayank_OL: context programing is bad and should always be avoid
2010-06-28 15:55 <Mayank_OL> cedk: okk, thanks for your help.
2010-06-28 15:55 -!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 15:56 <cedk> Mayank_OL: you should try to find a better way
2010-06-28 15:56 <cedk> Mayank_OL: I can not help you as I don't know your target
2010-06-28 15:59 <Mayank_OL> cedk: i have created a model A. On saving of record in model A, an wizard action is created which have res_model='user defined= B'
2010-06-28 15:59 <Mayank_OL> Now, i want to access fields of model A from wizard button created in model B.
2010-06-28 16:00 <Mayank_OL> cedk: can you suggest me some better way?
2010-06-28 16:03 <bechamel> Mayank_OL: what about something like self.pool.get('modelA').search(...) in your wizard ??
2010-06-28 16:04 -!- zodman(~Miranda@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 16:04 <cedk> Mayank_OL: you give a technical description so of course it is difficult to give you other one
2010-06-28 16:05 <Mayank_OL> bechamel: there is no such field about which i can search.
2010-06-28 16:05 <cedk> Mayank_OL: but I think I see what you mean, it is the create the same functionnality then poweremail?
2010-06-28 16:05 <Mayank_OL> cedk: yes
2010-06-28 16:06 <cedk> Mayank_OL: I'm not sure it is the right design
2010-06-28 16:07 <cedk> Mayank_OL: but first you can propose a patch here:
2010-06-28 16:07 <cedk> Mayank_OL: to generalize the context usage from
2010-06-28 16:08 <cedk> Mayank_OL: otherwise, I think it could be better to have only one "poweremail" per wizard and there you allow to select the model
2010-06-28 16:10 -!- digitalsatori(~tony@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 16:11 <Mayank_OL> cedk: can you elaborate the last line a bit more
2010-06-28 16:17 -!- Mayank_OL(~openlabs@ has left #tryton
2010-06-28 16:19 <cedk> Mayank_OL: just generate one wizard action per model and in the wizard you allow to select a record from model A
2010-06-28 18:11 -!- woakas(~woakas@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 18:40 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 18:50 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 18:58 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 18:59 <zodman> ey dudes i have a question ┬┐what is it the objective/reason for create multi databases on one tryton Instance? On my mind comes this: the owner of tryton instance have a production-database qa-dabatabase devel-database. ┬┐Exists another reason?
2010-06-28 19:12 -!- Timitos(~timitos@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 19:17 -!- Timitos1(~timitos@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 19:19 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 19:24 -!- Timitos(~timitos@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 19:30 -!- Timitos(~timitos@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 19:36 -!- udono( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 19:47 -!- plantian( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 19:59 -!- irclog( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:00 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:00 -!- plantian( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:00 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:00 -!- zodman(~Miranda@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:00 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:00 -!- FWiesing( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:00 -!- yangoon( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:00 -!- preC(~preCTWO@orkan.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE) has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:00 -!- ebanders( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:00 -!- ready( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:00 -!- Mithrandir( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:04 -!- dba_( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:07 -!- udono( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 20:17 -!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 21:19 -!- paepke( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 22:31 -!- paepke( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 22:39 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 22:53 -!- udono( has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 23:06 -!- zodman(~zodman@foresight/developer/zodman) has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 23:17 -!- appollodx(~ss@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 23:28 <plantian> cedk: Hey sorry we talked about this before but I forgot what your suggestion was and I just got around to trying to act on it. If a customer needs to be credited for returning packaging supplies that are NOT tracked in inventory what is the best way to do that? Create a consumable for that item, set a price for it and set the quantity to a negative quantity that is being returned?
2010-06-28 23:42 <plantian> -- I found it, but I'm not sure if I should use a service or a consumable.
2010-06-28 23:50 -!- zodman(~Miranda@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-28 23:53 <cedk> plantian: it depends of your objectif
2010-06-28 23:54 <cedk> plantian: consumable is product tracked in inventory but with the asuption that there is always enough quantity
2010-06-28 23:54 <cedk> plantian: service is product that are not tracked at all in the inventory
2010-06-28 23:55 <cedk> plantian: so as in your example it is boxes, I will suggest you to use conumable

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!