Skip to Content
  2. Mailing Lists
  3. Contributors

Archives

  • Product variant price based on calculation using attribute values

    Hello,


    the customer is manufacturing stainless steel shelves and such for kitchens. The variants are based on width and length. However there are some optional features that can be added which would need some custom calculation logic to get their price. Few examples:

    extra rim on the side: [width] * constant

    extra bottom: [width] * [length] * other_constant

    ...


    So generally taking the value(s) of attributes and using them in formula to get price for extra attribute. I have seen some commercial modules on appstore but I'd obviously rather go with OCA.


    Thank you. Best regards


        Radovan Skolnik

    by Radovan Skolnik - 12:41 - 1 Jul 2025

    4 replies 4 replies

  • PR review (gh pr checkout 2002)
    Hello Dears,

    I hope this email finds you well,

    Kindly check this PR as I'm in a hurry for its approval if possible,

    Thanks and Best Regards.
    by "Ahmed Jamal" <ahmed.j1350@gmail.com> - 12:23 - 27 Jun 2025
  • RE: Complete Visitors List for Odoo Experience Exhibition 2025

    Hi,

    · Yes, I am Interested, send me exclusive Fee and More information

     

    Regards.

    Shamim

     

    From: Lisa Nancy <notifications@odoo-community.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2025 4:18 pm
    To: Contributors <contributors@odoo-community.org>
    Subject: Complete Visitors List for Odoo Experience Exhibition 2025

     


     

    Hi,

    How are you?

    Odoo Experience Exhibition 2025, a pre-registered 3,852 Attendee list is available! to fulfil your promotional efforts.
    Date: 18 - 20 Sep 2025

    Venue: Brussels Expo - Exhibition Center, Brussels, Belgium


    Could you let me know if you want to receive the Attendee List with the Exclusive fee?


    List Includes: - Industry Type, Company_Name, Contact_Name, First_Name, Middle_Name, Last_Name, Titles, Address, City, State, ZIP Code, Phone_Number, Country and Business Type etc.

    Kindly describes your response:

    · Yes, I am Interested, send me exclusive Fee and More information
    · OPT-OUT

     

     

     

    Best regards,

    Lisa Nancy

    by Muhammad Shamim Ahmed - 01:35 - 24 Jun 2025

    4 replies 4 replies

  • Complete Visitors List for Odoo Experience Exhibition 2025

     

    Hi,

    How are you?

    Odoo Experience Exhibition 2025, a pre-registered 3,852 Attendee list is available! to fulfil your promotional efforts.
    Date: 18 - 20 Sep 2025

    Venue: Brussels Expo - Exhibition Center, Brussels, Belgium


    Could you let me know if you want to receive the Attendee List with the Exclusive fee?


    List Includes: - Industry Type, Company_Name, Contact_Name, First_Name, Middle_Name, Last_Name, Titles, Address, City, State, ZIP Code, Phone_Number, Country and Business Type etc.

    Kindly describes your response:

    · Yes, I am Interested, send me exclusive Fee and More information
    · OPT-OUT




    Best regards,

    Lisa Nancy

    by "Lisa Nancy" <lisa.nancy.smartleads@gmail.com> - 01:16 - 24 Jun 2025
  • Complete Visitor Directory of Odoo Experience Exhibition 2025

    Hi,

    How are you?

    Odoo Experience Exhibition 2025, a pre-registered 7,794 Attendee list is available! to fulfil your promotional efforts.

    Date: 18 - 20 Sep 2025

    Venue: Brussels Expo - Exhibition Center, Brussels, Belgium


    Could you let me know if you want to receive the Attendee List with the Exclusive fee?

    List Includes: - Contact Information, Email Address, Company Title, URL/Website, Mobile Number, Title/Designation. Etc.***

    Kindly describes your response:

    · Yes, I am Interested, send me exclusive Fee and More information
    · OPT-OUT



    Thanks & Regards,
    Amy Roy
    by "Amy Roy" <amy.roy.leadboost@gmail.com> - 12:22 - 24 Jun 2025
  • OCA/bank-payment-alternative
    Dear OCA friends,

    On March 26th 2025, Stéphane Bidoul sent an email on this mailing-list with the subject "The future of OCA/bank-payment". If you missed it, you can find it in the archives:

    After some long discussion/debate, it was decided to let the chance for an alternative OCA banking project that would use the native payment method object of the "account" module (account.payment.method.line). This project is named OCA/bank-payment-alternative and you can find it here: 

    We had to change the module names in OCA/bank-payment-alternative. Here are the new names that were chosen :

    OCA/bank-payment OCA/bank-payment-alternative
    account_payment_order account_payment_batch_oca
    account_banking_pain_base account_payment_sepa_base
    account_banking_sepa_credit_transfer account_payment_sepa_credit_transfer
    account_banking_mandate account_payment_mandate
    account_banking_mandate_sale account_payment_mandate_sale
    account_banking_sepa_direct_debit account_payment_sepa_direct_debit
    account_payment_mode native + account_payment_base_oca
    account_payment_partner native
    account_payment_sale account_payment_base_oca_sale

    Here are the main changes in the datamodel introduced by OCA/bank-payment-alternative :
    1. Adoption of the native object account.payment.method.line as "Payment Method" (replaces the OCA object account.payment.mode)
    2. Introduction of account.payment.lot, which represent the Payments Lots (corresponds to the PmtInf i.e. Payment Information block of the SEPA XML files). If your bank groups the debits/credits on your bank statement for the payments, a lot matches one debit or credit payment line on your bank account. This object is generated upon confirmation of the payment order and is used in the generation of the XML (and should soon be used in the bank statement reconcile interface)
    3. the datamodel of the mandate has been simplified: the field "format" also has the information of the "scheme" field, so "format" now has 3 possible values : basic, sepa_core or sepa_b2b. The field "scheme" has been removed. The field "type" has 2 possible values: recurrent or oneoff (instead of 3 possible values : generic, recurrent or oneoff). The field "recurrent_sequence_type" has been removed because we don't need to handle the "first" vs "recurring" sequence any more : since November 2016, "the requirement to use the sequence type ‘First’ in a first of a recurrent series of Collections is no longer mandatory" according to the European Payment Council (EPC), cf SDD Core Rulebook. The "final" sequence is now supported by the state field which has a new "final" state that can be activated via a button. The field "partner_id" is NOT a related field of partner_bank_id any more, which solves the bug "account_banking_mandate: Change in the filtering behavior of the "Bank Account" field" https://github.com/OCA/bank-payment/issues/1473 With all these simplifications on the mandate datamodel, the form view and list view of mandates are more user-friendly.
    4. The field generated_user_id has been removed from account.payment.order (the info is present in the chatter)
    5. On account.payment.method, the boolean field "payment_order_only" has been renamed to "payment_order_ok" (for consistency)
    6. The boolean field "convert_to_ascii" has been removed from account.payment.method : we consider that this option should be always on (there is a hook in the code in case you need to disable it).
    Here is a summary of the new features and improvements by order of importance :
    • Take into account the boolean field "allow_out_payment" of res.partner.bank on payment orders : when you try to confirm a payment order that has bank accounts on payment lines with allow_out_payment = False, you will get a blocking error message. The affected payment lines will be shown in red and you will have a smart button that gives access to the bank accounts that are not allowed to send money to. To enable "allow_out_payment", you need to be part of a specific group "Validate bank accounts" (XMLID account.group_validate_bank_account). As a consequence, we don't inherit the native ACL of res.partner.bank that give full rights to partner manager any more : the security is handled by "allow_out_payment".
    • by default, there is a sequence of payment orders and another sequence for debit orders. It is possible to configure a specific sequence for a payment mode.
    • add support for "Regulatory Reporting" in the SEPA XML structure (tag RgltryRptg). Needed in some countries for international non-SEPA credit transfers.
    • replace unstructured address by structured address in SEPA XML file (mandatory starting 11/2025)
    • add support for pain.008.01.08 (SDD) and pain.001.001.09 (SCT), which are now the recommended versions of the EPC
    • easier download of the banking file after generation
    • add field acc_number_scrambled on res.partner.bank for easy and direct use of scrambled account number
    • search on partner_id from account.payment.order
    • support currencies with decimal_places != 2 in ISO20022 XML file generation
    • on mandates, fields format, type, signature date and partner are not editable any more when state != draft
    • remove support for pain.001.001.02/04/05 (SCT) and pain.008.01.03/04 (SDD) which have never been selected by the EPC, to simplify the code
    • stop using safe_eval() in XML generation
    • replace all @api.onchange by computed fields
    • add sql unicity constraint on payment order number per company
    Many bugs have been fixed:
    You can have a complete list of the changes and bug fixes of OCA/bank-payment-alternative on these 2 issues:

    But, for me, the most important of OCA/bank-payment-alternative is the investment made on the quality of the code, not only on the SEPA XML generation but also on the lower-level modules.

    OCA/bank-payment-alternative will continue to focus on code quality and innovation (which involves datamodel changes when needed).
    Now that the modules are merged, the next priority should be on providing migration scripts for v17 to v18 migration.

    So, for v18, you now have the choice between OCA/bank-payment and OCA/bank-payment-alternative. Happy hacking !

    --
    Alexis de Lattre
    Akretion France - 27 rue Henri Rolland - 69100 Villeurbanne - France
    Mail : alexis.delattre@akretion.com

    by Alexis de Lattre - 03:34 - 21 Jun 2025

    30 replies 30 replies

    • Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative
      Dear all,

      During OCA days - on behalf of the board - I've taken the chance to find a common ground in this story and - hopefully - bring some clarity on where we are and what we'll do next with this alternative repo.

      Both Alexis and Pedro agreed on the following points:

      0. There's nothing personal, we are still friends in the community and we are all here because we want to see the community thrive.
      1. Both parties, in various ways, failed to maintain the discussion on the right path to keep it productive, polite and neutral (one side being harsh, one side not "listening").
      2. Every derivative work based on the alternative should stay in the alternative repo and have a proper name. For instance, an existing module is refactored on top of the alternative; it should be renamed and moved to this repo, while still keeping the original.
      3. The alternative repo must have a readme that states clearly where it comes from and where it should go. For instance, it must be clear that:
      - it's a fork of v16 and does not contain many improvements from v16 (past or future) nor from v17 or v18
      - it should mention pt 2 above regarding derivative work
      - it should provide a disclaimer about the future, which is uncertain since quite likely the payment line field is going to be removed in v20

      I hope I didn't forget anything :)

      Thank you Pedro and Alexis for your time and for your collaborative approach!

      Bests

      On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 8:57 AM Sergio Corato <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
      Hi all,

      I read various emails on this argument (I'm not sure I haven't missed some, so maybe I'm writing an unuseful email) and I'm sad about the way it is going. In Italy we had a similar event in the past, where the decision to fork was made by some people and was a bad moment, however this event made the community stronger.

      The usual 'open source way' as I know is that the decision has to be taken in a democratic poll from the responsible people, in this case the PSC, nothing to do with the OCA Board.

      The PSC is this one: https://github.com/orgs/OCA/teams/banking-maintainers and has 13 people, my solution should be to take a survey and to do whatever the result is. The people who are not interested to vote are maybe no more interested to be in the PSC too.

      Is this option unpracticable?

      Sergio Corato


      Il giorno sab 28 giu 2025 alle ore 17:42 Juan José 'Peco' San Martín <notifications@odoo-community.org> ha scritto:
      Good weekend everyone.

      There should be no debate: the PSC must have the final word and full responsibility over the project’s technical direction.
      The Board’s role should focus on governance, overseeing overall strategy, and providing support, but not on making technical decisions.

      It’s not the right approach to bypass the PSC. They should reconsider and perhaps run for PSC next time.

      Anyway, hopefully, we can lower the tone of the discussion and find something positive in all of this.

      Regards,
      JJ

      On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 1:51 PM Mignon, Laurent <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

      Dear OCA community friends,

      I am writing this message because what brings us together is now being tested by tensions that, if we are not careful, could divide us much more than just a technical discussion.

      Together, we have built a strong community known and respected for its core values: openness, quality, transparency, and respect for everyone’s work. None of us, alone or as a company, can say we are the OCA by ourselves. Our strength is our diversity.

      We are here today because of the many hours everyone has given: writing code, reviewing, documenting, discussing, helping each other, and defending the spirit of open source. We must remember that even when we do not agree, we are all here because we believe that together we can do more than alone.

      I am sure that no one here wants to hurt others or create conflict. We all want to move forward and find better solutions. But because we care so much and put so much passion and time into our work, it is normal that sometimes we feel hurt or misunderstood.

      The fork that is creating tensions now is not just a technical choice, it shows how we deal with disagreements and experiments in a living community. Sometimes they question how we do things or make us uncomfortable.

      Nobody wins if we turn a disagreement into a fight or blame each other. And nobody wants to break the important role of the PSC nor the OCA Board, just as we should not close the door to new ideas. IMO, we need both: clear and respected governance, and the freedom to try new things.

      If we want to move forward together, we maybe need clear and shared rules:

      • What limits do we want for internal forks (or how can we share experiments under the OCA umbrella)?

      • How do we make sure experiments do not break our common base?

      • How can everyone share their opinion without ignoring the roles we have decided together?

      • ???

      I think we should stop the public tension and speak openly together. It could be a very interesting and constructive debate.  Why not organize a clear and respectful meeting at the OCA days on this topic?

      We owe it to everyone who built this community, and to those who will join tomorrow, to keep trust and respect strong.

      We do not have to agree on everything, but we must stay united. And more than anything, we should never forget what each person brings. Without your time, generosity and passion, the OCA would not exist.

      Thank you all for what you have already done ... and for what we will build next, together.

      Respect, diversity and unity fuel innovation! That also keeps our community strong.

      Kind regards,

      Laurent


      On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 10:07 AM Graeme Gellatly <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
      My apologies, I got some details wrong although I still stand by the general message.  Certainly was not my intention, but again my apologies.   Believe me when I say I do have sympathy for the difficulties here. 

      tbh I did get sent 2 messages I saw in my notifications on my phone (thanks for the 2am wakups btw), but by the time I got to them they were gone and I have no idea via which platforms they were sent or what they were. I only saw first names and first line but presume it was board members.





      On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:26 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

      Hello all,

      First I would like to thank all community members for voicing their perspectives around the current situation with the oca/bank-payment project. Your commitment to OCA’s long-term success and open collaboration is deeply appreciated.

      Reviewing the discussion for a Board Member perspective I feel there are some important notes that need to be made here.

      I will not comment on any technical details, nor will I discuss any views on individual attitudes or merits. As a board member, the most important perspective here is on governance integrity, project ownership, and community trust.

      Clarifying on project governance, I believe the OCA Board agrees with me if I say the following:

      1. Respect for PSC Authority The OCA Board reaffirms the Project Steering Committee’s (PSC) responsibility and decision-making authority within the scope of their projects. This is foundational to our community governance model and must be preserved.

      2. Transparency and Neutrality of the Board The Board’s role is not to impose technical decisions but to facilitate alignment, mediate conflicts when escalated, and uphold governance structures. We acknowledge that people involved in PSCs can also be Board members, but they are not acting in that capacity, and it does not grant them any particular privileges in those PSCs.

      3. Forks and Innovation Channels While forks are a natural part of open-source ecosystems, “endorsed” forks under the OCA umbrella must be handled transparently, with consensus from relevant PSCs and clear processes.

      In face of the above, and on some comments on the email thread, I need to set the record straight:

      • Let me reaffirm that it is NOT up to the OCA Board to make decisions on the direction of oca/bank-payment project, or any other project governed by a PSC for the matter.

      • It is solely up to the Banking PSC to make the decisions on the evolution of the project, and how to handle diverging options.

      • The Board can intervene to facilitate alignment, but the decisions ultimately need to come from the PSC.

      Perhaps the PSC needs to meet to clarify the decisions made and the plan for the main and fork repos. A joint written statement can help ensure a shared understanding of those commitments, and avoid misunderstandings. The OCA Board is here to help facilitate this, and our Executive Director, Virginie, can help to ensure total independence on this facilitation.

      Thank you Daniel



      On 25/06/2025 08:58, Jorge Elena Poblet wrote:

      Dear all,

      I would like to express my opinion on this matter and propose a perspective that focuses on broader value, community cohesion, and long-term sustainability.

      While I recognize that Alexis' code is technically sound, we must also evaluate it in terms of value proposition to the OCA and its ecosystem. In my view, the added value does not outweigh the negative consequences of a fragmented community. The creation of a fork (especially one that causes division) undermines our collective efforts not only in terms of development but also in our market competitiveness as implementation partners offering open-source solutions.

      We are not just competing on code quality. We are competing in a global market where alignment, collaboration, and unity are crucial. A divided community weakens our position, and this discord will inevitably impact other critical areas such as sponsorships, memberships, and contributor engagement.

      If the OCA board allowed this situation to unfold (or worse, endorsed it) then I firmly believe the OCA board has a responsibility to fix it. That means actively engaging with the involved parties, reestablishing governance boundaries, and restoring trust and unity within the community. We look to the board not only for leadership but also for accountability in upholding the values and processes that bind us.

      This is no longer just about a particular module or technical choice. It's about governance, trust, and direction. The cost of internal fragmentation is far higher than the perceived benefits of a controversial code improvement, no matter how well-crafted.

      We urgently need to redirect our energy and focus toward strengthening our community, improving our collective output, and reinforcing our presence in the Odoo ecosystem. This is how we compete, how we grow, and how we stay relevant. Let’s not allow internal conflict to derail that mission.

      Best regards,


      On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 8:37 AM Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:


      As well as working with Odoo since 2006 and open Source since 10 years before, I lead a US Open Source foundation. I am an avid supporter of OSC and grateful to all of the contributors.

      Normally an observer here, I felt compelled to support Graeme's point that once a governance structure is set up such as PSC, it holds the decision until the PSC is disbanded or leadership is changed. So above any technical argument, governance takes precedence.

      The Foundation I lead is the Perl Foundation, well known for the acronym TIMTOWTDI (There Is More Than one Way To Do It) and this holds true in many areas and allows for experiments and empirical improvements, creating the opportunity for constructive arguments. However when on the user face of a successful mature project, there should be one recognised solution - forks etc should all be welcome, however PSC must have authority to recognise what is the official distribution. Once this rule is broken, it becomes very hard to ensure consistency and worst case, leads to core contributors to burn out and exit.

      It has been valuable reading the technical exchange on this matter, and concerning to read that there may have been a breach of governance.

      Best wishes,

      Stuart.




      On 24/06/2025 23:12, Graeme Gellatly wrote:
      This seems a case of the OCA board overstepping its bounds, and prima facie, appears quite conflicted to boot. When a board can unilaterally override a project leader, this is a problem and it is this behaviour that will lead to senior contributor abandonment. Especially when that project leader has clearly shown a path forward and board members have a vested interest in the alternative. Without this interest a fork was probably avoided altogether (and the new issues this is already creating), and eventually agreement reached, but if it was ultimately deemed necessary, it would have occurred outside the OCA and ultimately converged at some future point.

      Pedro and I have had disagreements over the years, and long may they continue. But I was never so churlish to think that just because I thought something was better I could unilaterally sidestep a project leader.  Beyond adhering to basic principles of open source governance and mediating, insofar as it does not affect the OCA Project as a whole, this is not a board decision. By its own constitution, such power is vested in the PSC. The board can choose to remove a PSC, but not unilaterally override its decision and historically when such disputes reached the board that was often the consideration. This is Open Source dynamics forever under the "authority follows responsibility" principle.

      In this, I can only back him 100%. As the clear leader of this particular project under the responsibility principle, whether you agree with him or not, it is a PSC decision and ultimately the project leader. If years of contribution and merit can be discarded by fiat, then it isn't really open source anymore is it? I ask myself which repo will be next. Certainly for me, if the OCA wishes to abandon these principles, it is not for the better.

      On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 9:47 PM Pedro M. Baeza <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
      There are a lot of people that strongly disagrees with the creation of this fork, that is something with no precedence in OCA, and offered to merge the improvements into the main branch, with the only exception of the point 1 "Adoption of the native object account.payment.method.line as "Payment Method" (replaces the OCA object account.payment.mode)", postponing the decision to version 19 to check with Odoo SA if they expand the usage of that fields, because the so called "native model" is not for that purpose, and the changes that have been made for adopting it as so is deforming even more the standard, but it was miserable ignored. You can see in the same thread the technical reasons to not use such data model, but also the ethical and practical ones, as the fork started on version 16, ignoring all the improvements and bugfixes done meanwhile in 17 (or now announced in this thread as new things, while they were there for a long time thanks to multiple contributors), and also not respecting such contributions attribution, which is one of the main principles of the open source.

      I'm deeply disappointed by both the attitude of the people involved, including some board members, and the arbitration done by the OCA itself, and I'm personally commiting to bring the improvements mentioned here that are still pending (obviously, respecting the attribution) to the main OCA/bank-payment branch, so please take all of this into account when you decide which one to use.

      Regards.

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      --

      Stuart J Mackintosh

      Business & digital technology consultant

      Open Digital Consulting Co

      Open Digital Consulting Co Logo

      UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

      FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

      Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

      Web: https://opendigital.cc

      IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe



      --
      Binhex Logo
      Jorge Elena Poblet
      Founder & CEO
      Binhex
      j.elena@binhex.cloud
      Office (Spain) : +34 622 40 08 08
      Office (USA): +1 561 403 4406
      Offices:
      Miami | 8325 NE 2nd Ave, Miami, FL 33138, United States
      Texas | 27027 Westheimer Pkwy Katy, TX 77494, United States
      Tenerife | Street Subida al Mayorazgo, 13, Office 15-2
      Las Palmas | Edificio Polivalente IV Campus de Tafira Parque Tecnológico de Gran Canaria
      LinkedIn Twitter Facebook YouTube
      Start for free: Try Odoo Community in the cloud

      This email is confidential and intended only for the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete it immediately.
      Privacy Policy

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe


      --
      DANIEL REIS
      MANAGING PARTNER

      >> Schedule time on my calendar.
      M: +351 919 991 307
      E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
      A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais

      [Logo OpenSourceIntegrators.com]

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe



      --
      Simone Orsi

      Full stack Python web developer, Odoo specialist, Odoo Community Board Member, in love with open source.
      by Simone Orsi. - 07:46 - 17 Sep 2025
    • Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative
      Hi all,

      I read various emails on this argument (I'm not sure I haven't missed some, so maybe I'm writing an unuseful email) and I'm sad about the way it is going. In Italy we had a similar event in the past, where the decision to fork was made by some people and was a bad moment, however this event made the community stronger.

      The usual 'open source way' as I know is that the decision has to be taken in a democratic poll from the responsible people, in this case the PSC, nothing to do with the OCA Board.

      The PSC is this one: https://github.com/orgs/OCA/teams/banking-maintainers and has 13 people, my solution should be to take a survey and to do whatever the result is. The people who are not interested to vote are maybe no more interested to be in the PSC too.

      Is this option unpracticable?

      Sergio Corato


      Il giorno sab 28 giu 2025 alle ore 17:42 Juan José 'Peco' San Martín <notifications@odoo-community.org> ha scritto:
      Good weekend everyone.

      There should be no debate: the PSC must have the final word and full responsibility over the project’s technical direction.
      The Board’s role should focus on governance, overseeing overall strategy, and providing support, but not on making technical decisions.

      It’s not the right approach to bypass the PSC. They should reconsider and perhaps run for PSC next time.

      Anyway, hopefully, we can lower the tone of the discussion and find something positive in all of this.

      Regards,
      JJ

      On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 1:51 PM Mignon, Laurent <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

      Dear OCA community friends,

      I am writing this message because what brings us together is now being tested by tensions that, if we are not careful, could divide us much more than just a technical discussion.

      Together, we have built a strong community known and respected for its core values: openness, quality, transparency, and respect for everyone’s work. None of us, alone or as a company, can say we are the OCA by ourselves. Our strength is our diversity.

      We are here today because of the many hours everyone has given: writing code, reviewing, documenting, discussing, helping each other, and defending the spirit of open source. We must remember that even when we do not agree, we are all here because we believe that together we can do more than alone.

      I am sure that no one here wants to hurt others or create conflict. We all want to move forward and find better solutions. But because we care so much and put so much passion and time into our work, it is normal that sometimes we feel hurt or misunderstood.

      The fork that is creating tensions now is not just a technical choice, it shows how we deal with disagreements and experiments in a living community. Sometimes they question how we do things or make us uncomfortable.

      Nobody wins if we turn a disagreement into a fight or blame each other. And nobody wants to break the important role of the PSC nor the OCA Board, just as we should not close the door to new ideas. IMO, we need both: clear and respected governance, and the freedom to try new things.

      If we want to move forward together, we maybe need clear and shared rules:

      • What limits do we want for internal forks (or how can we share experiments under the OCA umbrella)?

      • How do we make sure experiments do not break our common base?

      • How can everyone share their opinion without ignoring the roles we have decided together?

      • ???

      I think we should stop the public tension and speak openly together. It could be a very interesting and constructive debate.  Why not organize a clear and respectful meeting at the OCA days on this topic?

      We owe it to everyone who built this community, and to those who will join tomorrow, to keep trust and respect strong.

      We do not have to agree on everything, but we must stay united. And more than anything, we should never forget what each person brings. Without your time, generosity and passion, the OCA would not exist.

      Thank you all for what you have already done ... and for what we will build next, together.

      Respect, diversity and unity fuel innovation! That also keeps our community strong.

      Kind regards,

      Laurent


      On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 10:07 AM Graeme Gellatly <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
      My apologies, I got some details wrong although I still stand by the general message.  Certainly was not my intention, but again my apologies.   Believe me when I say I do have sympathy for the difficulties here. 

      tbh I did get sent 2 messages I saw in my notifications on my phone (thanks for the 2am wakups btw), but by the time I got to them they were gone and I have no idea via which platforms they were sent or what they were. I only saw first names and first line but presume it was board members.





      On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:26 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

      Hello all,

      First I would like to thank all community members for voicing their perspectives around the current situation with the oca/bank-payment project. Your commitment to OCA’s long-term success and open collaboration is deeply appreciated.

      Reviewing the discussion for a Board Member perspective I feel there are some important notes that need to be made here.

      I will not comment on any technical details, nor will I discuss any views on individual attitudes or merits. As a board member, the most important perspective here is on governance integrity, project ownership, and community trust.

      Clarifying on project governance, I believe the OCA Board agrees with me if I say the following:

      1. Respect for PSC Authority The OCA Board reaffirms the Project Steering Committee’s (PSC) responsibility and decision-making authority within the scope of their projects. This is foundational to our community governance model and must be preserved.

      2. Transparency and Neutrality of the Board The Board’s role is not to impose technical decisions but to facilitate alignment, mediate conflicts when escalated, and uphold governance structures. We acknowledge that people involved in PSCs can also be Board members, but they are not acting in that capacity, and it does not grant them any particular privileges in those PSCs.

      3. Forks and Innovation Channels While forks are a natural part of open-source ecosystems, “endorsed” forks under the OCA umbrella must be handled transparently, with consensus from relevant PSCs and clear processes.

      In face of the above, and on some comments on the email thread, I need to set the record straight:

      • Let me reaffirm that it is NOT up to the OCA Board to make decisions on the direction of oca/bank-payment project, or any other project governed by a PSC for the matter.

      • It is solely up to the Banking PSC to make the decisions on the evolution of the project, and how to handle diverging options.

      • The Board can intervene to facilitate alignment, but the decisions ultimately need to come from the PSC.

      Perhaps the PSC needs to meet to clarify the decisions made and the plan for the main and fork repos. A joint written statement can help ensure a shared understanding of those commitments, and avoid misunderstandings. The OCA Board is here to help facilitate this, and our Executive Director, Virginie, can help to ensure total independence on this facilitation.

      Thank you Daniel



      On 25/06/2025 08:58, Jorge Elena Poblet wrote:

      Dear all,

      I would like to express my opinion on this matter and propose a perspective that focuses on broader value, community cohesion, and long-term sustainability.

      While I recognize that Alexis' code is technically sound, we must also evaluate it in terms of value proposition to the OCA and its ecosystem. In my view, the added value does not outweigh the negative consequences of a fragmented community. The creation of a fork (especially one that causes division) undermines our collective efforts not only in terms of development but also in our market competitiveness as implementation partners offering open-source solutions.

      We are not just competing on code quality. We are competing in a global market where alignment, collaboration, and unity are crucial. A divided community weakens our position, and this discord will inevitably impact other critical areas such as sponsorships, memberships, and contributor engagement.

      If the OCA board allowed this situation to unfold (or worse, endorsed it) then I firmly believe the OCA board has a responsibility to fix it. That means actively engaging with the involved parties, reestablishing governance boundaries, and restoring trust and unity within the community. We look to the board not only for leadership but also for accountability in upholding the values and processes that bind us.

      This is no longer just about a particular module or technical choice. It's about governance, trust, and direction. The cost of internal fragmentation is far higher than the perceived benefits of a controversial code improvement, no matter how well-crafted.

      We urgently need to redirect our energy and focus toward strengthening our community, improving our collective output, and reinforcing our presence in the Odoo ecosystem. This is how we compete, how we grow, and how we stay relevant. Let’s not allow internal conflict to derail that mission.

      Best regards,


      On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 8:37 AM Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:


      As well as working with Odoo since 2006 and open Source since 10 years before, I lead a US Open Source foundation. I am an avid supporter of OSC and grateful to all of the contributors.

      Normally an observer here, I felt compelled to support Graeme's point that once a governance structure is set up such as PSC, it holds the decision until the PSC is disbanded or leadership is changed. So above any technical argument, governance takes precedence.

      The Foundation I lead is the Perl Foundation, well known for the acronym TIMTOWTDI (There Is More Than one Way To Do It) and this holds true in many areas and allows for experiments and empirical improvements, creating the opportunity for constructive arguments. However when on the user face of a successful mature project, there should be one recognised solution - forks etc should all be welcome, however PSC must have authority to recognise what is the official distribution. Once this rule is broken, it becomes very hard to ensure consistency and worst case, leads to core contributors to burn out and exit.

      It has been valuable reading the technical exchange on this matter, and concerning to read that there may have been a breach of governance.

      Best wishes,

      Stuart.




      On 24/06/2025 23:12, Graeme Gellatly wrote:
      This seems a case of the OCA board overstepping its bounds, and prima facie, appears quite conflicted to boot. When a board can unilaterally override a project leader, this is a problem and it is this behaviour that will lead to senior contributor abandonment. Especially when that project leader has clearly shown a path forward and board members have a vested interest in the alternative. Without this interest a fork was probably avoided altogether (and the new issues this is already creating), and eventually agreement reached, but if it was ultimately deemed necessary, it would have occurred outside the OCA and ultimately converged at some future point.

      Pedro and I have had disagreements over the years, and long may they continue. But I was never so churlish to think that just because I thought something was better I could unilaterally sidestep a project leader.  Beyond adhering to basic principles of open source governance and mediating, insofar as it does not affect the OCA Project as a whole, this is not a board decision. By its own constitution, such power is vested in the PSC. The board can choose to remove a PSC, but not unilaterally override its decision and historically when such disputes reached the board that was often the consideration. This is Open Source dynamics forever under the "authority follows responsibility" principle.

      In this, I can only back him 100%. As the clear leader of this particular project under the responsibility principle, whether you agree with him or not, it is a PSC decision and ultimately the project leader. If years of contribution and merit can be discarded by fiat, then it isn't really open source anymore is it? I ask myself which repo will be next. Certainly for me, if the OCA wishes to abandon these principles, it is not for the better.

      On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 9:47 PM Pedro M. Baeza <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
      There are a lot of people that strongly disagrees with the creation of this fork, that is something with no precedence in OCA, and offered to merge the improvements into the main branch, with the only exception of the point 1 "Adoption of the native object account.payment.method.line as "Payment Method" (replaces the OCA object account.payment.mode)", postponing the decision to version 19 to check with Odoo SA if they expand the usage of that fields, because the so called "native model" is not for that purpose, and the changes that have been made for adopting it as so is deforming even more the standard, but it was miserable ignored. You can see in the same thread the technical reasons to not use such data model, but also the ethical and practical ones, as the fork started on version 16, ignoring all the improvements and bugfixes done meanwhile in 17 (or now announced in this thread as new things, while they were there for a long time thanks to multiple contributors), and also not respecting such contributions attribution, which is one of the main principles of the open source.

      I'm deeply disappointed by both the attitude of the people involved, including some board members, and the arbitration done by the OCA itself, and I'm personally commiting to bring the improvements mentioned here that are still pending (obviously, respecting the attribution) to the main OCA/bank-payment branch, so please take all of this into account when you decide which one to use.

      Regards.

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      --

      Stuart J Mackintosh

      Business & digital technology consultant

      Open Digital Consulting Co

      Open Digital Consulting Co Logo

      UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

      FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

      Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

      Web: https://opendigital.cc

      IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe



      --
      Binhex Logo
      Jorge Elena Poblet
      Founder & CEO
      Binhex
      j.elena@binhex.cloud
      Office (Spain) : +34 622 40 08 08
      Office (USA): +1 561 403 4406
      Offices:
      Miami | 8325 NE 2nd Ave, Miami, FL 33138, United States
      Texas | 27027 Westheimer Pkwy Katy, TX 77494, United States
      Tenerife | Street Subida al Mayorazgo, 13, Office 15-2
      Las Palmas | Edificio Polivalente IV Campus de Tafira Parque Tecnológico de Gran Canaria
      LinkedIn Twitter Facebook YouTube
      Start for free: Try Odoo Community in the cloud

      This email is confidential and intended only for the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete it immediately.
      Privacy Policy

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe


      --
      DANIEL REIS
      MANAGING PARTNER

      >> Schedule time on my calendar.
      M: +351 919 991 307
      E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
      A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais

      [Logo OpenSourceIntegrators.com]

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      by Sergio Corato - 08:56 - 30 Jun 2025
    • Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative
      Good weekend everyone.

      There should be no debate: the PSC must have the final word and full responsibility over the project’s technical direction.
      The Board’s role should focus on governance, overseeing overall strategy, and providing support, but not on making technical decisions.

      It’s not the right approach to bypass the PSC. They should reconsider and perhaps run for PSC next time.

      Anyway, hopefully, we can lower the tone of the discussion and find something positive in all of this.

      Regards,
      JJ

      On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 1:51 PM Mignon, Laurent <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

      Dear OCA community friends,

      I am writing this message because what brings us together is now being tested by tensions that, if we are not careful, could divide us much more than just a technical discussion.

      Together, we have built a strong community known and respected for its core values: openness, quality, transparency, and respect for everyone’s work. None of us, alone or as a company, can say we are the OCA by ourselves. Our strength is our diversity.

      We are here today because of the many hours everyone has given: writing code, reviewing, documenting, discussing, helping each other, and defending the spirit of open source. We must remember that even when we do not agree, we are all here because we believe that together we can do more than alone.

      I am sure that no one here wants to hurt others or create conflict. We all want to move forward and find better solutions. But because we care so much and put so much passion and time into our work, it is normal that sometimes we feel hurt or misunderstood.

      The fork that is creating tensions now is not just a technical choice, it shows how we deal with disagreements and experiments in a living community. Sometimes they question how we do things or make us uncomfortable.

      Nobody wins if we turn a disagreement into a fight or blame each other. And nobody wants to break the important role of the PSC nor the OCA Board, just as we should not close the door to new ideas. IMO, we need both: clear and respected governance, and the freedom to try new things.

      If we want to move forward together, we maybe need clear and shared rules:

      • What limits do we want for internal forks (or how can we share experiments under the OCA umbrella)?

      • How do we make sure experiments do not break our common base?

      • How can everyone share their opinion without ignoring the roles we have decided together?

      • ???

      I think we should stop the public tension and speak openly together. It could be a very interesting and constructive debate.  Why not organize a clear and respectful meeting at the OCA days on this topic?

      We owe it to everyone who built this community, and to those who will join tomorrow, to keep trust and respect strong.

      We do not have to agree on everything, but we must stay united. And more than anything, we should never forget what each person brings. Without your time, generosity and passion, the OCA would not exist.

      Thank you all for what you have already done ... and for what we will build next, together.

      Respect, diversity and unity fuel innovation! That also keeps our community strong.

      Kind regards,

      Laurent


      On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 10:07 AM Graeme Gellatly <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
      My apologies, I got some details wrong although I still stand by the general message.  Certainly was not my intention, but again my apologies.   Believe me when I say I do have sympathy for the difficulties here. 

      tbh I did get sent 2 messages I saw in my notifications on my phone (thanks for the 2am wakups btw), but by the time I got to them they were gone and I have no idea via which platforms they were sent or what they were. I only saw first names and first line but presume it was board members.





      On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:26 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

      Hello all,

      First I would like to thank all community members for voicing their perspectives around the current situation with the oca/bank-payment project. Your commitment to OCA’s long-term success and open collaboration is deeply appreciated.

      Reviewing the discussion for a Board Member perspective I feel there are some important notes that need to be made here.

      I will not comment on any technical details, nor will I discuss any views on individual attitudes or merits. As a board member, the most important perspective here is on governance integrity, project ownership, and community trust.

      Clarifying on project governance, I believe the OCA Board agrees with me if I say the following:

      1. Respect for PSC Authority The OCA Board reaffirms the Project Steering Committee’s (PSC) responsibility and decision-making authority within the scope of their projects. This is foundational to our community governance model and must be preserved.

      2. Transparency and Neutrality of the Board The Board’s role is not to impose technical decisions but to facilitate alignment, mediate conflicts when escalated, and uphold governance structures. We acknowledge that people involved in PSCs can also be Board members, but they are not acting in that capacity, and it does not grant them any particular privileges in those PSCs.

      3. Forks and Innovation Channels While forks are a natural part of open-source ecosystems, “endorsed” forks under the OCA umbrella must be handled transparently, with consensus from relevant PSCs and clear processes.

      In face of the above, and on some comments on the email thread, I need to set the record straight:

      • Let me reaffirm that it is NOT up to the OCA Board to make decisions on the direction of oca/bank-payment project, or any other project governed by a PSC for the matter.

      • It is solely up to the Banking PSC to make the decisions on the evolution of the project, and how to handle diverging options.

      • The Board can intervene to facilitate alignment, but the decisions ultimately need to come from the PSC.

      Perhaps the PSC needs to meet to clarify the decisions made and the plan for the main and fork repos. A joint written statement can help ensure a shared understanding of those commitments, and avoid misunderstandings. The OCA Board is here to help facilitate this, and our Executive Director, Virginie, can help to ensure total independence on this facilitation.

      Thank you Daniel



      On 25/06/2025 08:58, Jorge Elena Poblet wrote:

      Dear all,

      I would like to express my opinion on this matter and propose a perspective that focuses on broader value, community cohesion, and long-term sustainability.

      While I recognize that Alexis' code is technically sound, we must also evaluate it in terms of value proposition to the OCA and its ecosystem. In my view, the added value does not outweigh the negative consequences of a fragmented community. The creation of a fork (especially one that causes division) undermines our collective efforts not only in terms of development but also in our market competitiveness as implementation partners offering open-source solutions.

      We are not just competing on code quality. We are competing in a global market where alignment, collaboration, and unity are crucial. A divided community weakens our position, and this discord will inevitably impact other critical areas such as sponsorships, memberships, and contributor engagement.

      If the OCA board allowed this situation to unfold (or worse, endorsed it) then I firmly believe the OCA board has a responsibility to fix it. That means actively engaging with the involved parties, reestablishing governance boundaries, and restoring trust and unity within the community. We look to the board not only for leadership but also for accountability in upholding the values and processes that bind us.

      This is no longer just about a particular module or technical choice. It's about governance, trust, and direction. The cost of internal fragmentation is far higher than the perceived benefits of a controversial code improvement, no matter how well-crafted.

      We urgently need to redirect our energy and focus toward strengthening our community, improving our collective output, and reinforcing our presence in the Odoo ecosystem. This is how we compete, how we grow, and how we stay relevant. Let’s not allow internal conflict to derail that mission.

      Best regards,


      On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 8:37 AM Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:


      As well as working with Odoo since 2006 and open Source since 10 years before, I lead a US Open Source foundation. I am an avid supporter of OSC and grateful to all of the contributors.

      Normally an observer here, I felt compelled to support Graeme's point that once a governance structure is set up such as PSC, it holds the decision until the PSC is disbanded or leadership is changed. So above any technical argument, governance takes precedence.

      The Foundation I lead is the Perl Foundation, well known for the acronym TIMTOWTDI (There Is More Than one Way To Do It) and this holds true in many areas and allows for experiments and empirical improvements, creating the opportunity for constructive arguments. However when on the user face of a successful mature project, there should be one recognised solution - forks etc should all be welcome, however PSC must have authority to recognise what is the official distribution. Once this rule is broken, it becomes very hard to ensure consistency and worst case, leads to core contributors to burn out and exit.

      It has been valuable reading the technical exchange on this matter, and concerning to read that there may have been a breach of governance.

      Best wishes,

      Stuart.




      On 24/06/2025 23:12, Graeme Gellatly wrote:
      This seems a case of the OCA board overstepping its bounds, and prima facie, appears quite conflicted to boot. When a board can unilaterally override a project leader, this is a problem and it is this behaviour that will lead to senior contributor abandonment. Especially when that project leader has clearly shown a path forward and board members have a vested interest in the alternative. Without this interest a fork was probably avoided altogether (and the new issues this is already creating), and eventually agreement reached, but if it was ultimately deemed necessary, it would have occurred outside the OCA and ultimately converged at some future point.

      Pedro and I have had disagreements over the years, and long may they continue. But I was never so churlish to think that just because I thought something was better I could unilaterally sidestep a project leader.  Beyond adhering to basic principles of open source governance and mediating, insofar as it does not affect the OCA Project as a whole, this is not a board decision. By its own constitution, such power is vested in the PSC. The board can choose to remove a PSC, but not unilaterally override its decision and historically when such disputes reached the board that was often the consideration. This is Open Source dynamics forever under the "authority follows responsibility" principle.

      In this, I can only back him 100%. As the clear leader of this particular project under the responsibility principle, whether you agree with him or not, it is a PSC decision and ultimately the project leader. If years of contribution and merit can be discarded by fiat, then it isn't really open source anymore is it? I ask myself which repo will be next. Certainly for me, if the OCA wishes to abandon these principles, it is not for the better.

      On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 9:47 PM Pedro M. Baeza <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
      There are a lot of people that strongly disagrees with the creation of this fork, that is something with no precedence in OCA, and offered to merge the improvements into the main branch, with the only exception of the point 1 "Adoption of the native object account.payment.method.line as "Payment Method" (replaces the OCA object account.payment.mode)", postponing the decision to version 19 to check with Odoo SA if they expand the usage of that fields, because the so called "native model" is not for that purpose, and the changes that have been made for adopting it as so is deforming even more the standard, but it was miserable ignored. You can see in the same thread the technical reasons to not use such data model, but also the ethical and practical ones, as the fork started on version 16, ignoring all the improvements and bugfixes done meanwhile in 17 (or now announced in this thread as new things, while they were there for a long time thanks to multiple contributors), and also not respecting such contributions attribution, which is one of the main principles of the open source.

      I'm deeply disappointed by both the attitude of the people involved, including some board members, and the arbitration done by the OCA itself, and I'm personally commiting to bring the improvements mentioned here that are still pending (obviously, respecting the attribution) to the main OCA/bank-payment branch, so please take all of this into account when you decide which one to use.

      Regards.

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      --

      Stuart J Mackintosh

      Business & digital technology consultant

      Open Digital Consulting Co

      Open Digital Consulting Co Logo

      UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

      FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

      Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

      Web: https://opendigital.cc

      IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe



      --
      Binhex Logo
      Jorge Elena Poblet
      Founder & CEO
      Binhex
      j.elena@binhex.cloud
      Office (Spain) : +34 622 40 08 08
      Office (USA): +1 561 403 4406
      Offices:
      Miami | 8325 NE 2nd Ave, Miami, FL 33138, United States
      Texas | 27027 Westheimer Pkwy Katy, TX 77494, United States
      Tenerife | Street Subida al Mayorazgo, 13, Office 15-2
      Las Palmas | Edificio Polivalente IV Campus de Tafira Parque Tecnológico de Gran Canaria
      LinkedIn Twitter Facebook YouTube
      Start for free: Try Odoo Community in the cloud

      This email is confidential and intended only for the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete it immediately.
      Privacy Policy

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe


      --
      DANIEL REIS
      MANAGING PARTNER

      >> Schedule time on my calendar.
      M: +351 919 991 307
      E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
      A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais

      [Logo OpenSourceIntegrators.com]

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      by peco - 05:41 - 28 Jun 2025
    • Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative

      Dear OCA community friends,

      I am writing this message because what brings us together is now being tested by tensions that, if we are not careful, could divide us much more than just a technical discussion.

      Together, we have built a strong community known and respected for its core values: openness, quality, transparency, and respect for everyone’s work. None of us, alone or as a company, can say we are the OCA by ourselves. Our strength is our diversity.

      We are here today because of the many hours everyone has given: writing code, reviewing, documenting, discussing, helping each other, and defending the spirit of open source. We must remember that even when we do not agree, we are all here because we believe that together we can do more than alone.

      I am sure that no one here wants to hurt others or create conflict. We all want to move forward and find better solutions. But because we care so much and put so much passion and time into our work, it is normal that sometimes we feel hurt or misunderstood.

      The fork that is creating tensions now is not just a technical choice, it shows how we deal with disagreements and experiments in a living community. Sometimes they question how we do things or make us uncomfortable.

      Nobody wins if we turn a disagreement into a fight or blame each other. And nobody wants to break the important role of the PSC nor the OCA Board, just as we should not close the door to new ideas. IMO, we need both: clear and respected governance, and the freedom to try new things.

      If we want to move forward together, we maybe need clear and shared rules:

      • What limits do we want for internal forks (or how can we share experiments under the OCA umbrella)?

      • How do we make sure experiments do not break our common base?

      • How can everyone share their opinion without ignoring the roles we have decided together?

      • ???

      I think we should stop the public tension and speak openly together. It could be a very interesting and constructive debate.  Why not organize a clear and respectful meeting at the OCA days on this topic?

      We owe it to everyone who built this community, and to those who will join tomorrow, to keep trust and respect strong.

      We do not have to agree on everything, but we must stay united. And more than anything, we should never forget what each person brings. Without your time, generosity and passion, the OCA would not exist.

      Thank you all for what you have already done ... and for what we will build next, together.

      Respect, diversity and unity fuel innovation! That also keeps our community strong.

      Kind regards,

      Laurent


      On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 10:07 AM Graeme Gellatly <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
      My apologies, I got some details wrong although I still stand by the general message.  Certainly was not my intention, but again my apologies.   Believe me when I say I do have sympathy for the difficulties here. 

      tbh I did get sent 2 messages I saw in my notifications on my phone (thanks for the 2am wakups btw), but by the time I got to them they were gone and I have no idea via which platforms they were sent or what they were. I only saw first names and first line but presume it was board members.





      On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:26 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

      Hello all,

      First I would like to thank all community members for voicing their perspectives around the current situation with the oca/bank-payment project. Your commitment to OCA’s long-term success and open collaboration is deeply appreciated.

      Reviewing the discussion for a Board Member perspective I feel there are some important notes that need to be made here.

      I will not comment on any technical details, nor will I discuss any views on individual attitudes or merits. As a board member, the most important perspective here is on governance integrity, project ownership, and community trust.

      Clarifying on project governance, I believe the OCA Board agrees with me if I say the following:

      1. Respect for PSC Authority The OCA Board reaffirms the Project Steering Committee’s (PSC) responsibility and decision-making authority within the scope of their projects. This is foundational to our community governance model and must be preserved.

      2. Transparency and Neutrality of the Board The Board’s role is not to impose technical decisions but to facilitate alignment, mediate conflicts when escalated, and uphold governance structures. We acknowledge that people involved in PSCs can also be Board members, but they are not acting in that capacity, and it does not grant them any particular privileges in those PSCs.

      3. Forks and Innovation Channels While forks are a natural part of open-source ecosystems, “endorsed” forks under the OCA umbrella must be handled transparently, with consensus from relevant PSCs and clear processes.

      In face of the above, and on some comments on the email thread, I need to set the record straight:

      • Let me reaffirm that it is NOT up to the OCA Board to make decisions on the direction of oca/bank-payment project, or any other project governed by a PSC for the matter.

      • It is solely up to the Banking PSC to make the decisions on the evolution of the project, and how to handle diverging options.

      • The Board can intervene to facilitate alignment, but the decisions ultimately need to come from the PSC.

      Perhaps the PSC needs to meet to clarify the decisions made and the plan for the main and fork repos. A joint written statement can help ensure a shared understanding of those commitments, and avoid misunderstandings. The OCA Board is here to help facilitate this, and our Executive Director, Virginie, can help to ensure total independence on this facilitation.

      Thank you Daniel



      On 25/06/2025 08:58, Jorge Elena Poblet wrote:

      Dear all,

      I would like to express my opinion on this matter and propose a perspective that focuses on broader value, community cohesion, and long-term sustainability.

      While I recognize that Alexis' code is technically sound, we must also evaluate it in terms of value proposition to the OCA and its ecosystem. In my view, the added value does not outweigh the negative consequences of a fragmented community. The creation of a fork (especially one that causes division) undermines our collective efforts not only in terms of development but also in our market competitiveness as implementation partners offering open-source solutions.

      We are not just competing on code quality. We are competing in a global market where alignment, collaboration, and unity are crucial. A divided community weakens our position, and this discord will inevitably impact other critical areas such as sponsorships, memberships, and contributor engagement.

      If the OCA board allowed this situation to unfold (or worse, endorsed it) then I firmly believe the OCA board has a responsibility to fix it. That means actively engaging with the involved parties, reestablishing governance boundaries, and restoring trust and unity within the community. We look to the board not only for leadership but also for accountability in upholding the values and processes that bind us.

      This is no longer just about a particular module or technical choice. It's about governance, trust, and direction. The cost of internal fragmentation is far higher than the perceived benefits of a controversial code improvement, no matter how well-crafted.

      We urgently need to redirect our energy and focus toward strengthening our community, improving our collective output, and reinforcing our presence in the Odoo ecosystem. This is how we compete, how we grow, and how we stay relevant. Let’s not allow internal conflict to derail that mission.

      Best regards,


      On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 8:37 AM Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:


      As well as working with Odoo since 2006 and open Source since 10 years before, I lead a US Open Source foundation. I am an avid supporter of OSC and grateful to all of the contributors.

      Normally an observer here, I felt compelled to support Graeme's point that once a governance structure is set up such as PSC, it holds the decision until the PSC is disbanded or leadership is changed. So above any technical argument, governance takes precedence.

      The Foundation I lead is the Perl Foundation, well known for the acronym TIMTOWTDI (There Is More Than one Way To Do It) and this holds true in many areas and allows for experiments and empirical improvements, creating the opportunity for constructive arguments. However when on the user face of a successful mature project, there should be one recognised solution - forks etc should all be welcome, however PSC must have authority to recognise what is the official distribution. Once this rule is broken, it becomes very hard to ensure consistency and worst case, leads to core contributors to burn out and exit.

      It has been valuable reading the technical exchange on this matter, and concerning to read that there may have been a breach of governance.

      Best wishes,

      Stuart.




      On 24/06/2025 23:12, Graeme Gellatly wrote:
      This seems a case of the OCA board overstepping its bounds, and prima facie, appears quite conflicted to boot. When a board can unilaterally override a project leader, this is a problem and it is this behaviour that will lead to senior contributor abandonment. Especially when that project leader has clearly shown a path forward and board members have a vested interest in the alternative. Without this interest a fork was probably avoided altogether (and the new issues this is already creating), and eventually agreement reached, but if it was ultimately deemed necessary, it would have occurred outside the OCA and ultimately converged at some future point.

      Pedro and I have had disagreements over the years, and long may they continue. But I was never so churlish to think that just because I thought something was better I could unilaterally sidestep a project leader.  Beyond adhering to basic principles of open source governance and mediating, insofar as it does not affect the OCA Project as a whole, this is not a board decision. By its own constitution, such power is vested in the PSC. The board can choose to remove a PSC, but not unilaterally override its decision and historically when such disputes reached the board that was often the consideration. This is Open Source dynamics forever under the "authority follows responsibility" principle.

      In this, I can only back him 100%. As the clear leader of this particular project under the responsibility principle, whether you agree with him or not, it is a PSC decision and ultimately the project leader. If years of contribution and merit can be discarded by fiat, then it isn't really open source anymore is it? I ask myself which repo will be next. Certainly for me, if the OCA wishes to abandon these principles, it is not for the better.

      On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 9:47 PM Pedro M. Baeza <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
      There are a lot of people that strongly disagrees with the creation of this fork, that is something with no precedence in OCA, and offered to merge the improvements into the main branch, with the only exception of the point 1 "Adoption of the native object account.payment.method.line as "Payment Method" (replaces the OCA object account.payment.mode)", postponing the decision to version 19 to check with Odoo SA if they expand the usage of that fields, because the so called "native model" is not for that purpose, and the changes that have been made for adopting it as so is deforming even more the standard, but it was miserable ignored. You can see in the same thread the technical reasons to not use such data model, but also the ethical and practical ones, as the fork started on version 16, ignoring all the improvements and bugfixes done meanwhile in 17 (or now announced in this thread as new things, while they were there for a long time thanks to multiple contributors), and also not respecting such contributions attribution, which is one of the main principles of the open source.

      I'm deeply disappointed by both the attitude of the people involved, including some board members, and the arbitration done by the OCA itself, and I'm personally commiting to bring the improvements mentioned here that are still pending (obviously, respecting the attribution) to the main OCA/bank-payment branch, so please take all of this into account when you decide which one to use.

      Regards.

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      --

      Stuart J Mackintosh

      Business & digital technology consultant

      Open Digital Consulting Co

      Open Digital Consulting Co Logo

      UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

      FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

      Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

      Web: https://opendigital.cc

      IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe



      --
      Binhex Logo
      Jorge Elena Poblet
      Founder & CEO
      Binhex
      j.elena@binhex.cloud
      Office (Spain) : +34 622 40 08 08
      Office (USA): +1 561 403 4406
      Offices:
      Miami | 8325 NE 2nd Ave, Miami, FL 33138, United States
      Texas | 27027 Westheimer Pkwy Katy, TX 77494, United States
      Tenerife | Street Subida al Mayorazgo, 13, Office 15-2
      Las Palmas | Edificio Polivalente IV Campus de Tafira Parque Tecnológico de Gran Canaria
      LinkedIn Twitter Facebook YouTube
      Start for free: Try Odoo Community in the cloud

      This email is confidential and intended only for the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete it immediately.
      Privacy Policy

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe


      --
      DANIEL REIS
      MANAGING PARTNER

      >> Schedule time on my calendar.
      M: +351 919 991 307
      E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
      A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais

      [Logo OpenSourceIntegrators.com]

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      by Laurent Mignon - 01:50 - 28 Jun 2025
    • Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative
      My apologies, I got some details wrong although I still stand by the general message.  Certainly was not my intention, but again my apologies.   Believe me when I say I do have sympathy for the difficulties here. 

      tbh I did get sent 2 messages I saw in my notifications on my phone (thanks for the 2am wakups btw), but by the time I got to them they were gone and I have no idea via which platforms they were sent or what they were. I only saw first names and first line but presume it was board members.





      On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:26 PM Daniel Reis <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

      Hello all,

      First I would like to thank all community members for voicing their perspectives around the current situation with the oca/bank-payment project. Your commitment to OCA’s long-term success and open collaboration is deeply appreciated.

      Reviewing the discussion for a Board Member perspective I feel there are some important notes that need to be made here.

      I will not comment on any technical details, nor will I discuss any views on individual attitudes or merits. As a board member, the most important perspective here is on governance integrity, project ownership, and community trust.

      Clarifying on project governance, I believe the OCA Board agrees with me if I say the following:

      1. Respect for PSC Authority The OCA Board reaffirms the Project Steering Committee’s (PSC) responsibility and decision-making authority within the scope of their projects. This is foundational to our community governance model and must be preserved.

      2. Transparency and Neutrality of the Board The Board’s role is not to impose technical decisions but to facilitate alignment, mediate conflicts when escalated, and uphold governance structures. We acknowledge that people involved in PSCs can also be Board members, but they are not acting in that capacity, and it does not grant them any particular privileges in those PSCs.

      3. Forks and Innovation Channels While forks are a natural part of open-source ecosystems, “endorsed” forks under the OCA umbrella must be handled transparently, with consensus from relevant PSCs and clear processes.

      In face of the above, and on some comments on the email thread, I need to set the record straight:

      • Let me reaffirm that it is NOT up to the OCA Board to make decisions on the direction of oca/bank-payment project, or any other project governed by a PSC for the matter.

      • It is solely up to the Banking PSC to make the decisions on the evolution of the project, and how to handle diverging options.

      • The Board can intervene to facilitate alignment, but the decisions ultimately need to come from the PSC.

      Perhaps the PSC needs to meet to clarify the decisions made and the plan for the main and fork repos. A joint written statement can help ensure a shared understanding of those commitments, and avoid misunderstandings. The OCA Board is here to help facilitate this, and our Executive Director, Virginie, can help to ensure total independence on this facilitation.

      Thank you Daniel



      On 25/06/2025 08:58, Jorge Elena Poblet wrote:

      Dear all,

      I would like to express my opinion on this matter and propose a perspective that focuses on broader value, community cohesion, and long-term sustainability.

      While I recognize that Alexis' code is technically sound, we must also evaluate it in terms of value proposition to the OCA and its ecosystem. In my view, the added value does not outweigh the negative consequences of a fragmented community. The creation of a fork (especially one that causes division) undermines our collective efforts not only in terms of development but also in our market competitiveness as implementation partners offering open-source solutions.

      We are not just competing on code quality. We are competing in a global market where alignment, collaboration, and unity are crucial. A divided community weakens our position, and this discord will inevitably impact other critical areas such as sponsorships, memberships, and contributor engagement.

      If the OCA board allowed this situation to unfold (or worse, endorsed it) then I firmly believe the OCA board has a responsibility to fix it. That means actively engaging with the involved parties, reestablishing governance boundaries, and restoring trust and unity within the community. We look to the board not only for leadership but also for accountability in upholding the values and processes that bind us.

      This is no longer just about a particular module or technical choice. It's about governance, trust, and direction. The cost of internal fragmentation is far higher than the perceived benefits of a controversial code improvement, no matter how well-crafted.

      We urgently need to redirect our energy and focus toward strengthening our community, improving our collective output, and reinforcing our presence in the Odoo ecosystem. This is how we compete, how we grow, and how we stay relevant. Let’s not allow internal conflict to derail that mission.

      Best regards,


      On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 8:37 AM Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:


      As well as working with Odoo since 2006 and open Source since 10 years before, I lead a US Open Source foundation. I am an avid supporter of OSC and grateful to all of the contributors.

      Normally an observer here, I felt compelled to support Graeme's point that once a governance structure is set up such as PSC, it holds the decision until the PSC is disbanded or leadership is changed. So above any technical argument, governance takes precedence.

      The Foundation I lead is the Perl Foundation, well known for the acronym TIMTOWTDI (There Is More Than one Way To Do It) and this holds true in many areas and allows for experiments and empirical improvements, creating the opportunity for constructive arguments. However when on the user face of a successful mature project, there should be one recognised solution - forks etc should all be welcome, however PSC must have authority to recognise what is the official distribution. Once this rule is broken, it becomes very hard to ensure consistency and worst case, leads to core contributors to burn out and exit.

      It has been valuable reading the technical exchange on this matter, and concerning to read that there may have been a breach of governance.

      Best wishes,

      Stuart.




      On 24/06/2025 23:12, Graeme Gellatly wrote:
      This seems a case of the OCA board overstepping its bounds, and prima facie, appears quite conflicted to boot. When a board can unilaterally override a project leader, this is a problem and it is this behaviour that will lead to senior contributor abandonment. Especially when that project leader has clearly shown a path forward and board members have a vested interest in the alternative. Without this interest a fork was probably avoided altogether (and the new issues this is already creating), and eventually agreement reached, but if it was ultimately deemed necessary, it would have occurred outside the OCA and ultimately converged at some future point.

      Pedro and I have had disagreements over the years, and long may they continue. But I was never so churlish to think that just because I thought something was better I could unilaterally sidestep a project leader.  Beyond adhering to basic principles of open source governance and mediating, insofar as it does not affect the OCA Project as a whole, this is not a board decision. By its own constitution, such power is vested in the PSC. The board can choose to remove a PSC, but not unilaterally override its decision and historically when such disputes reached the board that was often the consideration. This is Open Source dynamics forever under the "authority follows responsibility" principle.

      In this, I can only back him 100%. As the clear leader of this particular project under the responsibility principle, whether you agree with him or not, it is a PSC decision and ultimately the project leader. If years of contribution and merit can be discarded by fiat, then it isn't really open source anymore is it? I ask myself which repo will be next. Certainly for me, if the OCA wishes to abandon these principles, it is not for the better.

      On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 9:47 PM Pedro M. Baeza <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
      There are a lot of people that strongly disagrees with the creation of this fork, that is something with no precedence in OCA, and offered to merge the improvements into the main branch, with the only exception of the point 1 "Adoption of the native object account.payment.method.line as "Payment Method" (replaces the OCA object account.payment.mode)", postponing the decision to version 19 to check with Odoo SA if they expand the usage of that fields, because the so called "native model" is not for that purpose, and the changes that have been made for adopting it as so is deforming even more the standard, but it was miserable ignored. You can see in the same thread the technical reasons to not use such data model, but also the ethical and practical ones, as the fork started on version 16, ignoring all the improvements and bugfixes done meanwhile in 17 (or now announced in this thread as new things, while they were there for a long time thanks to multiple contributors), and also not respecting such contributions attribution, which is one of the main principles of the open source.

      I'm deeply disappointed by both the attitude of the people involved, including some board members, and the arbitration done by the OCA itself, and I'm personally commiting to bring the improvements mentioned here that are still pending (obviously, respecting the attribution) to the main OCA/bank-payment branch, so please take all of this into account when you decide which one to use.

      Regards.

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      --

      Stuart J Mackintosh

      Business & digital technology consultant

      Open Digital Consulting Co

      Open Digital Consulting Co Logo

      UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40

      FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40

      Email: sjm@opendigital.cc

      Web: https://opendigital.cc

      IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe



      --
      Binhex Logo
      Jorge Elena Poblet
      Founder & CEO
      Binhex
      j.elena@binhex.cloud
      Office (Spain) : +34 622 40 08 08
      Office (USA): +1 561 403 4406
      Offices:
      Miami | 8325 NE 2nd Ave, Miami, FL 33138, United States
      Texas | 27027 Westheimer Pkwy Katy, TX 77494, United States
      Tenerife | Street Subida al Mayorazgo, 13, Office 15-2
      Las Palmas | Edificio Polivalente IV Campus de Tafira Parque Tecnológico de Gran Canaria
      LinkedIn Twitter Facebook YouTube
      Start for free: Try Odoo Community in the cloud

      This email is confidential and intended only for the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete it immediately.
      Privacy Policy

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe


      --
      DANIEL REIS
      MANAGING PARTNER

      >> Schedule time on my calendar.
      M: +351 919 991 307
      E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
      A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais

      [Logo OpenSourceIntegrators.com]

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      by Graeme Gellatly - 10:06 - 28 Jun 2025

  • New module to upgrade Odoo from Odoo itself
    Hi all!

    I put in a module for Odoo the methods I use to migrate Odoo from v. 7.0 onwards, to migrate to one or more upper versions from inside Odoo itself.

    It works by creating a series of virtualenv, one for each version to migrate, and making some customizable fixes on the process.

    The readme of the module is here https://github.com/efatto/openupgrader/blob/14.0/openupgrader/README.rst and I would like to contribute it to OCA if possible.

    Sergio Corato

    Notes:
    1. The methods need a robust refactoring - I've started to write them when I barely knew Python - but they have worked for several years, migrating more versions like from 8.0 to 12.0.
    2.  This module needs some extra debian package to work in the default OCA container, so it's impossible to make the tests work now.

    Sergio Corato
    by Sergio Corato - 03:20 - 20 Jun 2025

    10 replies 10 replies

  • OCA Days 2025 - Code Sprint Survey - what will you be working on? In-person or online?
    Hello OCA Contributors,

    I hope this finds you well.

    OCA Days 2025 is happening 15th-17th September in Liege, Belgium.

    Register here. Early-bird member tickets close 30th June - these are €200. From 1st of July member's tickets are €250. You can also attend as a non-member €330, but it makes sense if you are not already a member to buy a membership and save!

    This year we are trying to give the code-sprint side of things more support. Monday the 15th will be solely code sprint based (there are some awesome training sessions available as well if you want to upskill) with Tuesday and Wednesday offering the code sprint and our great talks and presentations.

    The code sprint will obviously be in-person but we are wanting to include those that can't make it to Belgium as well. With a bit of planning and preparation we will have access remotely as well.

    We had a great OCA Days 2025 workgroup meeting last week, looking at past feedback, we have identified ways we can create a great coding experience for you but we need your help.

    Please take a minute to complete this survey with what you are considering working on for the OCA Days 2025 code sprint to help us plan this event for you. We are also looking for facilitators and table leads, so let us know if you are keen to help out!

    I'll close off the survey next Tuesday 24th June so we can use the results at our next workgroup meeting on Wednesday 25th June.

    Any questions just get in touch.
    Warmest regards from New Zealand.
    Rebecca

    --
    Rebecca Gellatly
    General Secretary
    Odoo Community Association
    by Rebecca Gellatly (OCA) - 04:31 - 16 Jun 2025
  • Odoo Website Data Export/Import 
    Hello OCA Contributors

One of our customers created a website on odoo.com and wanted it to be 
migrated to the new on-premise instance. As the odoo.com db already was 
on 18.3 a database migration was not possible.
I searched for solutions to export/import website records, but did not 
find a suitable solution. Thus I created two scripts that help migrating 
website data:

Export website data: 
https://github.com/Mint-System/Odoo-Build/blob/main/bin/export-website-data

Import website data: 
https://github.com/Mint-System/Odoo-Build/blob/main/bin/import-website-data

With this mail I want to give some visibility to the problem and share 
my solution.

Cheeers,

Janik


-- 
Suggest a meeting: https://apmt.day/janikvonrotz/999120f2/
We are hiring: https://www.mint-system.ch/jobs

CTO Mint System GmbH
Tel: +41 44 244 7222
    by Janik von Rotz - 09:56 - 13 Jun 2025

    5 replies 5 replies

  • Membership

    Hello Amir, I can confirm that you are tagged as a contributor AND an OCA member in the OCA database.
    What do you mean when you say Ñ My name and details are not available in OCA member list? Which list are you referring to?
    Regards,

    by Julie LeBrun (OCA) - 10:03 - 9 Jun 2025
  • Membership

    Hi all,

    I registered in community as a member and signed CLA but my name and details do not available in OCA member list.
    by Amir Akbari - 10:18 - 6 Jun 2025

    1 replies 1 replies

  • A connector to MS SQL Server
    Hi, All,

    I do apologise in advance , if it is not the proper place to ask about the following:

    How do you guys pull efficiently, transactional data , regularly from MS SQL server ? 

    I can assure there should be already a connectors existing;
    Or , there is something else?
    I mean , Odoo being like a massaging broker client (pub/sub)?!

    Thanks,

    - iPhone -
    by milori2006 - 01:06 - 5 Jun 2025

    2 replies 2 replies

    • Re: A connector to MS SQL Server 
      You might also have a look into

https://github.com/OCA/iot/tree/17.0/iot_amqp_oca

or https://github.com/fkantelberg/interfaces/tree/16.0/mqtt

Best Frederik

Am 05.06.25 um 15:48 schrieb Apm Consultancy:

> Hi, All,

>

> I do apologise in advance , if it is not the proper place to ask about 

> the following:

>

> How do you guys pull efficiently, transactional data , regularly from 

> MS SQL server ?

>

> I can assure there should be already a connectors existing;

> Or , there is something else?

> I mean , Odoo being like a massaging broker client (pub/sub)?!

>

> Thanks,

>

> - iPhone -

>

> _______________________________________________

> Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15

> Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org

> Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

>

-- 
Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer
Geschäftsführer

initOS GmbH
Innungsstraße 7
21244 Buchholz i.d.N.

Tel:   +49 (0) 4181 13503 12
Fax:   +49 (0) 4181 13503 10
Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819

Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com
Internet: www.initos.com

Geschäftsführung:
Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N.
Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226
USt-IdNr.: DE815580155
Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
      by Frederik Kramer. - 04:54 - 5 Jun 2025
    • Re: A connector to MS SQL Server 
      Hi,

you can check out this and port it to a newer version ;-)

https://github.com/OCA/server-backend/tree/16.0/base_external_dbsource_mssql

Best Frederik

Am 05.06.25 um 15:48 schrieb Apm Consultancy:

> Hi, All,

>

> I do apologise in advance , if it is not the proper place to ask about 

> the following:

>

> How do you guys pull efficiently, transactional data , regularly from 

> MS SQL server ?

>

> I can assure there should be already a connectors existing;

> Or , there is something else?

> I mean , Odoo being like a massaging broker client (pub/sub)?!

>

> Thanks,

>

> - iPhone -

>

> _______________________________________________

> Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15

> Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org

> Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

>

-- 
Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer
Geschäftsführer

initOS GmbH
Innungsstraße 7
21244 Buchholz i.d.N.

Tel:   +49 (0) 4181 13503 12
Fax:   +49 (0) 4181 13503 10
Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819

Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com
Internet: www.initos.com

Geschäftsführung:
Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N.
Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226
USt-IdNr.: DE815580155
Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
      by Frederik Kramer. - 04:54 - 5 Jun 2025
  • [partner-contact] Animal module waiting for 17.0/18.0 
    Hello OCA,
the pull requests 2071 (17.0) & 1993 (18.0) are currently in open 
status.

Does anybody can check them ?
Regards.

Yann Le Doaré
    by Yann Le Doaré - 09:28 - 5 Jun 2025
  • OCA Apps on Odoo App Store: status (for v18 and all versions)
    Hello everyone,

    The majority of the OCA modules are available on the official Odoo App Store. 

    However, the way the App Store is built might bring issues for certain of our modules to be published (for example when a module moves from one OCA repo to another).

    As the process of publishing the OCA modules is manual and time-consuming, we won't solve all the issues. You can contact us for specific cases if this is blocking the publication of your modules depending on OCA modules (please contact support@odoo-community.org).

    (almost) All the OCA modules are available in the OCA App Store : https://odoo-community.org/shop (that will be largerly improved in the next months).

    Greetings from the Spanish OCA Days in Cartagena,
    Virginie Dewulf
    Executive Director
    +32 477 64 17 20
    by Virginie Dewulf (OCA) - 07:57 - 4 Jun 2025

    3 replies 3 replies

  • App Icon for Milk theme (Odoo 17+)
    For anyone interested, I created an SVG color scheme based on official app icons from the new milk theme.

    There is no official guidelines about designing an icon (shape+colors) that looks like Odoo's built-in apps but the "secret sauce" is about overlapping shapes to get this color mix

    --
    Yann PAPOUIN, Ingénieur R&D | DEC
    by Yann Papouin - 10:41 - 4 Jun 2025

    2 replies 2 replies

  • June OCA OWL Training!
    Dear contributors! 
    We are excited to share that in June, the OCA will provide a complete training on the Odoo framework "OWL"!
    We know you have been waiting for it.


    This training will be done in English.  A Spanish version of this training will be provided by the AEOdoo.

    We understand that some people from the American continent would have wanted to participate, and they will have the opportunity in the fall when we will host another session of the OWL training.

    Keep an eye out and don't hesitate to share this positive news within your community!

    --
    Julie LeBrun
    Content Creator & Training Manager
    by Julie LeBrun (OCA) - 01:02 - 2 Jun 2025
  • Debt transfer module?
    Hello!

    We have a requirement where employees report expenses they make and which later have to be reimbursed by the company. However, the vendor bill that gets generated from these expenses should belong on the actual providers of the service or good, not to the employee, which is the standard behavior.

    Do you know of any module or modules which allow us to transfer debts from the expense report?

    Thank you!
    by Samuel Macias Oropeza - 11:01 - 30 May 2025
  • OCA Zone at Odoo Experience - there is still room for you!
    Hello OCA Contributors.

    I hope this finds you all well.

    Earlier in the year I messaged about the OCA Zone at Odoo XP.
    I have heard from Odoo and we still have space for a few more to join us in our area!

    You just need to be a current OCA Sponsor. Very easy, you can become one right now, you'll see our newly updated sponsor packages here: https://odoo-community.org/get-involved/become-a-sponsor

    I will then get in touch and connect you with Odoo and they will invoice you directly for a standard booth in the OCA Zone at the Odoo XP. 

    We need to move pretty quickly on this for anyone else wanting to join, so get in touch with me ASAP and I will help get things rolling: rebecca@odoo-community.org

    We are really looking forward to having a great community environment this year and supporting each other!

    Warm regards,
    Rebecca

    --
    Rebecca Gellatly
    General Secretary
    Odoo Community Association
    by Rebecca Gellatly (OCA) - 04:31 - 26 May 2025
  • Demande de sponsoring – Projet Marathon international 2025-2027

    Bonjour,

    Je me permets de vous contacter afin de vous proposer un partenariat dans le cadre de mon projet sportif autour des marathons internationaux.

    Je suis un marathonien amateur de 37 ans, passionné par la course de fond, avec un record personnel de 2h45 établi lors du Marathon de Berlin en 2024. Mon objectif est ambitieux : descendre sous la barre des 2h40 au Marathon de Chicago en 2025. Ce défi s'inscrit dans un programme pluriannuel qui m'amènera également à participer aux prestigieux marathons de Boston et New York en 2026, ainsi qu’au Marathon de Belgrade en 2027.

    Dans cette optique, je suis à la recherche de partenaires susceptibles de m’apporter un soutien financier pour m’aider à couvrir les frais liés aux déplacements, inscriptions et logistique autour de ces compétitions.

    En contrepartie, je propose une visibilité régulière de la marque Odoo sur mes réseaux sociaux (Instagram, Facebook, Strava), ainsi qu’un flocage de votre logo sur mes équipements lors de ces événements internationaux très médiatisés.

    Je suis convaincu qu’un partenariat avec Odoo, entreprise innovante et dynamique, ferait sens dans le cadre de ce projet sportif basé sur la rigueur, la persévérance et la performance.

    Je reste à votre disposition pour discuter de cette proposition ou vous fournir un dossier plus détaillé.

    En vous remerciant par avance pour votre attention,
    Bien cordialement,

    Mason Morhet
    0479041314
    Rue Louis maréchal 119
    4360 Oreye 
    Belgique 

    by "mason morhet" <masmorhet@msn.com> - 03:35 - 24 May 2025

    1 attachments 1 attachments

    full.jpg

    1 replies 1 replies

    • Re: Demande de sponsoring – Projet Marathon international 2025-2027
      Hello,

      This mailing list is meant for the people contributing to the odoo community association, an independant organisation from Odoo S.A. company. Our communication language is English.

      You should contact Odoo company directly and not use this mailing list for such request in the future.

      Thanks and have a good run!
      Virginie Dewulf
      Executive Director
      +32 477 64 17 20

      Le sam. 24 mai 2025, 15:37, mason morhet <notifications@odoo-community.org> a écrit :

      Bonjour,

      Je me permets de vous contacter afin de vous proposer un partenariat dans le cadre de mon projet sportif autour des marathons internationaux.

      Je suis un marathonien amateur de 37 ans, passionné par la course de fond, avec un record personnel de 2h45 établi lors du Marathon de Berlin en 2024. Mon objectif est ambitieux : descendre sous la barre des 2h40 au Marathon de Chicago en 2025. Ce défi s'inscrit dans un programme pluriannuel qui m'amènera également à participer aux prestigieux marathons de Boston et New York en 2026, ainsi qu’au Marathon de Belgrade en 2027.

      Dans cette optique, je suis à la recherche de partenaires susceptibles de m’apporter un soutien financier pour m’aider à couvrir les frais liés aux déplacements, inscriptions et logistique autour de ces compétitions.

      En contrepartie, je propose une visibilité régulière de la marque Odoo sur mes réseaux sociaux (Instagram, Facebook, Strava), ainsi qu’un flocage de votre logo sur mes équipements lors de ces événements internationaux très médiatisés.

      Je suis convaincu qu’un partenariat avec Odoo, entreprise innovante et dynamique, ferait sens dans le cadre de ce projet sportif basé sur la rigueur, la persévérance et la performance.

      Je reste à votre disposition pour discuter de cette proposition ou vous fournir un dossier plus détaillé.

      En vous remerciant par avance pour votre attention,
      Bien cordialement,

      Mason Morhet
      0479041314
      Rue Louis maréchal 119
      4360 Oreye 
      Belgique 

      _______________________________________________
      Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
      Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
      Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

      by Virginie Dewulf (OCA) - 05:16 - 24 May 2025
  • Handling 0% Tax in Invoices
    Dear Community,

    In version 18, Odoo already supports creating 0% taxes via https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/199144

    but it must config __keep_zero_line to True.
    I think this should add a new module account_move_zero_tax in OCA to allow this configuration more conveniently.

    Should I propose it under https://github.com/OCA/account-financial-tools or https://github.com/OCA/account-invoicing or has someone already contributed something similar?

    Thank you,
    Saran Lim.
    by saranl - 07:16 - 21 May 2025

    3 replies 3 replies