1. Mailing Lists
  2. Contributors
  3. Re: Renaming OCA/project-service to OCA/vertical-service

Contributors mailing list archives

contributors@odoo-community.org

Browse archives

Re: Renaming OCA/project-service to OCA/vertical-service

Re: Renaming OCA/project-service to OCA/vertical-service

Avatar

Re: Renaming OCA/project-service to OCA/vertical-service

by
Elico Corp, Eric Caudal
- 29/08/2015 02:00:18
I am in favor of having an incubator repo (collecting any module proposal with no or limited rules: pep8, description) along with "certified" tag/repo(s) which are proven to be added-value modules (odoo-connector, soon-to-be MRP suite, banking, many verticals, etc...).
Decision to move from incubator to be taken by a committee of peers or by the board after discussion in the contributors' list.

--
Eric Caudal [Founder and CEO]
Skype: elico.corp. Phone: + 86 186 2136 1670 (Cell), + 86 21 6211 8017/27/37 (Office)
Elico Shanghai (Shenzhen/Singapore) Odoo Gold Partner, best Odoo Partner 2014 for APAC
On 08/29/2015 12:07 AM, Daniel Reis wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:55E086EF.80600@sapo.pt" type="cite"> 
> just a word to say this illustrate again the dead end of trying to
> manage several modules in the same branch. IMHO the only soultion is
> indeed one module = 1 repo and have eventually a list of official OCA
> semantic tags to classify the modules. There will always be border
> line modules, cross dependencies and whil we can probably overcome
> this specific issue, such issues will only arrise more and more often.
>
That's under discussion in the v9 migration thread. I posted my concerns
about the collaboration workflow and until now no convincing arguments
were proposed. For that to be viable we first need solutions to:
1) Collaborate (new modules, PRs)
2) Steering (Issues, cross compatibility, feature overlapping, roadmaps)
3) Technical migration (dependency discovery, git details)

> Also today, the OCA isn't yet really visible commercially speaking.
> That means people who take care of managing it such as PSC, have a
> growing burden, as number of modules and PR's grow with little
> incentive for it. I think it's important to keep a good balance and
> keep the OCA scope inside something doable. That is the OCA won't
> manage all Odoo modules of the world and this is very fine. I think
> this also means we should quickly establish a list of stable central
> modules for which a high level of security/burocracy is required and
> by opposition have a lot more flexible rules for maturing satellite
> modules for which there is not enough experienced active contributors
> anyway.
>
Essentially you propose OCA to reduce it's scope to only a module shortlist.
But the OCA is a collection of hundreds of "ant" modules, and I'm afraid
no one can elect a list of "killer" modules to oversee.
IMO there is a lot of low quality code out there, even from experienced
Odoo partners (throw the first rock who never wrote a "bad module").
The OCA provides a safe place where we can have some quality assurance.

But maybe there is some middle ground: again an "incubator" space could
be an interesting experiment - with OCA tooling and processes, but repos
not controlled by OCA.


> That being said kudos for the hard work again.

Thank you for moving off the topic ;-)

--Daniel

Reference