Contributors

• Re: The future of oca/bank-payment

  Hello, all colleagues!

   

  First of all, I want to greet you, and with my comment, I'm only trying to calm and soothe the moods, which are sometimes milestones that I honestly believe are of great merit. Ultimately, if we're involved in these discussions, it's because we care about our OCA Organization and contribute the best of each of us... but that doesn't mean that sometimes we don't agree, or for whatever reasons the responses and disagreements have been, we end up questioning something that doesn't convince us, or because someone has a point of view that differs from ours.

   

  That said, what we do need to safeguard is that in these discussions, we must be restrained in our comments that impact us all in some way, and because in the end, those who benefit from our public and honest disagreements that lead nowhere are the same ones who are rubbing their hands together trying to get us out of this, our common home, and move on to examples of how we don't understand each other... and that's not the case... because, I believe, sometimes our honesty and clarity in communications are the very reason we are immersed in the OCA project, and it's taking its toll on us.

   

  I would like to address this message to all colleagues in general, and especially to those involved in these recent debates. This is why I have participated in these comments. I apologize if my message is misunderstood. With the best of intentions, it only seeks to maintain the differences we deem appropriate, as is the law, but also to safeguard offensive comments and disagreements with the best possible tone and in the best possible harmony, which is how I consider all members of our OCA Organization.

   

  A hug to everyone, and I send you health and brotherhood from Andalusia (Spain).

   

  

  El 18/04/2025 18:52 CEST Enric Tobella Alomar <notifications@odoo-community.org> escribió:

   

   

  Hi Stéphane and everyone,

   

  I understand that creating a fork is not the best outcome, but it seems inevitable right now. If we need to create it, I would call it experimental. As I explained several times, the native use of this fields is not the use that you are proposing (you can check on Odoos commits to see that it just a field for help on the creation of payments, nothing else). Odoo's approach is completly different in this topic and we are trying to enforce our system in something different. Also, using the word native is a way of saying that the original work is not "native". Obviously, this is not correct and you are enforcing an opinionated option as the "native". Also, we have no confirmation on this topic from Odoo (and I think they will never give an answer on this topic). For these reasons, I would never call it native, as Graeme said, calling it experimental seems a good approach. In any case, my vote is to avoid the creation of this fork. I understand that this might be rude, but you are trying to enforce a specific way of doing without taking care of PSC comments. Reviews were added on this PRs and we received no answers, we raised concerns about it and you couldn't give any compromises. In my opinion, this a rude way to act on a community environment.

   

  Personally, it seems that you are enforcing a picture where people against Alexis solution are "bad people" that are against community health. But, IMO, we delivered comments and opinions and we were ignored everytime. Even so, in the explanation of how the meeting was, it was something like: Some people opinons, but it is just opinions... Alexis thinks that his code is better, so his code is better(without proofs)... However, even Alexis confesed that he was not doing a proper work as maintainer of the tool. Sorry if some people thinks I am too direct or rude, but sometimes people need to be clear and expose their fears and concerns.

   

  Also, some PSC offered their help (Pedro and myself for example) in order to get a a middle solution, but we received no answer on that again. 

   

  Maybe merging the PRs directly was not the best option, but it was clear that it was a "all or nothing" approach from Alexis side as he refused to get a middle solution no matter the comments or problems raised from the other side. IMO, merging Tecnativa's PRs was a good way to proceed, as Alexis was not giving any options to get a common ground and we have been waiting several months for this.

   

  Personally, I have been in similar situations where two people offered different solutions for the same problem and both parties tried to converge. In this case, only one of them proposed things to converge. The other one, made a fork and tried to enforce their opinion no matter what (even loosing work from other people...)

   

  Kind regards,

  
  

  El vie, 18 abr 2025 a las 17:43, Stéphane Bidoul (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:

  Hi everyone,

   

  As we are Friday 18th, have we obtained more information from Odoo about their intentions with these fields?

   

  Pedro, I find it really rude that you closed PRs without waiting for the conclusion of this conversation.

   

  Anyway, since this is done, I conclude that the decision is taken, and it is not possible to converge for 18.

  I am disappointed and I see that as a kind of failure for our community that a fork has to happen, but this is the only way forward I see. 

   

  The only possible solution that our tooling supports is creating modules with new names. Since these modules will contain models with identical names, we need to declare them conflicting with the existing ones in their manifests.

   

  A new repo is not strictly necessary but seems useful to reduce confusion. As I re-read the thread, there was agreement on that.

   

  I don't have a strong opinion on the name of the new repo. Alexis' proposal of bank-payment-native is better that anything else I can think of so far. Let's open the PR on repo-maintainer-conf. We can still adapt the name if a better one emerges.

   

  Could the READMEs of each repo (and if possible each addons) reference each other so users can make informed decisions and encourage future convergence?

   

  Ah, one last thing. I'm also saddened by the ad-hominem attacks in this thread. This is definitely not what we want in a thriving community. Maintaining open source projects is not easy, and if perfect maintainers exist I don't know them.

   

  To conclude, let's recognize that if convergence is not possible, exploring different approaches is also healthy, and OCA can provide room for that.

   

  Wishing you a nice weekend,

   

  -Stéphane

   

  
  

  On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 11:06 AM Graeme Gellatly <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

  Just ping me if you need review, unfortunately we get failure trying to test locally, but we are in the middle of a 450 module migration, down to last dozen or so, most ultimately depending on payment order. We have production data, freshly migrated via enterprise to do real proper testing on. Only problem we face is we can't aggregate the current merge requests.  Although maybe there is a better way we can do that.

   

  merges:

      - origin $ODOO_VERSION

      # Can't merge 1439 at the moment because of this

      # test-requirements.txt commit:

      # befd64bd07aaa293026b648bc06494d6f1b466fc

      # https://github.com/OCA/bank-payment/pull/1439/

      #- origin refs/pull/1438/head # 'account_payment_mode'

      #- origin refs/pull/1439/head # 'account_payment_partner'

      #- origin refs/pull/1440/head # 'account_payment_order'

  
  

  On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 7:22 PM Pedro M. Baeza <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

  I'm disappointed that both Virginie's summary and Alexis' reply appears to say "Alexis' proposal is better, but...", when I exposed clearly in the meeting and previously written on the threads that the main problems are:

   

  - The switch to account.payment.method.line is not better. It provokes a lot of work to do, user adaptation, etc, with no clear benefit.

  - The current proposed code starts from a fork done 2 years ago, not having all the work done meanwhile in the main branch.

  - It contains a lot of datamodel changes apart from the main question, which are the same problematic.

   

  And again, I'm not saying the current code quality on the XML export is the best, but that it should be worked on as a separate proposal, not trying to impose all the changes together. I even offered to help him to extract that improvement to be proposed over current OCA code, but my offering seems to not serve for anything...

   

  I'm also surprised about the washing done on Alexis' attitude, while he clearly recognized it.

   

  Anyway, I continue with the merging of the current modules that is blocking me and a lot of other good contributors, and I have already spent a lot of time on this topic.

   

  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

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

   

   

  --
  

  Enric Tobella Alomar

  CEO & Founder
  

  

  www.dixmit.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 Jose Luis Baños - 09:34 - 18 Apr 2025

  1 attachments 1 attachments

  Logo para contestación de correos y reenvios JLBB.png

• Re: The future of oca/bank-payment

  And again, you are reflecting that Alexis' time is precious, while ours is simply rejected or put on background. He has spent that time because he wanted to. Since the beginning, I expressed that I think it was a bad idea, with no replies on his part, so who's having inadequate behaviors?

  
  

  Regards.

  ---

  by Pedro M. Baeza - 07:47 - 18 Apr 2025

• Re: The future of oca/bank-payment

  > I merely pointed out a couple of things I found inadequate in this thread, and saddened me.

  
  

  Stéphane. I had already answered to this, as there's no inadequate behavior not having to wait more time if things are clear.

  
  

  > My understanding on that is that there was no alternative option that would have not cost him a huge effort on top of what he had done already. If everyone had an infinite budget and time available things would be easier :)

  
  

  That's not true, as all my offerings put time on my side, not him, and I have already expressed that several times. What I see inadequate is that you, Stéphane, not being part of the meeting we took, or even the conversations, seen that all that I wrote is being ignored, and given your reputation inside OCA ecosystem, throws out to me personally bad behaviors, while softening other even worst behaviors by Alexis admitted by him, like having a code that has not follow community guidelines nor collaborative minimum rules (I remind you that the proposed branch is a fork of 16.0 done 2 years ago, excluding all the community improvements meanwhile).

  
  

  Regards.

  ---

  by Pedro M. Baeza - 07:41 - 18 Apr 2025

• Re: The future of oca/bank-payment

  Hi Enric,

  
  

  > Personally, it seems that you are enforcing a picture where people against Alexis solution are "bad people" that are against community health

  
  

  That is absolutely not my intent!

  
  

  I merely pointed out a couple of things I found inadequate in this thread, and saddened me.

  
  

  > Alexis was not giving any options to get a common ground

  
  

  My understanding on that is that there was no alternative option that would have not cost him a huge effort on top of what he had done already. If everyone had an infinite budget and time available things would be easier :)

  
  

  For the rest I simply notice that no agreement was found and we now need to move forward, if possible without losing valuable contributions and contributors.

  So the fork is the next best solution so each approach can compete on its own merit (with of course an advantage to the incumbent and that's normal - but let's not make things harder than necessary for the new approach).

  
  

  Best regards,

  
  

  -Stéphane

  
  

  
  

  On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 6:52 PM Enric Tobella Alomar <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
  

  Hi Stéphane and everyone,

  
  

  I understand that creating a fork is not the best outcome, but it seems inevitable right now. If we need to create it, I would call it experimental. As I explained several times, the native use of this fields is not the use that you are proposing (you can check on Odoos commits to see that it just a field for help on the creation of payments, nothing else). Odoo's approach is completly different in this topic and we are trying to enforce our system in something different. Also, using the word native is a way of saying that the original work is not "native". Obviously, this is not correct and you are enforcing an opinionated option as the "native". Also, we have no confirmation on this topic from Odoo (and I think they will never give an answer on this topic). For these reasons, I would never call it native, as Graeme said, calling it experimental seems a good approach. In any case, my vote is to avoid the creation of this fork. I understand that this might be rude, but you are trying to enforce a specific way of doing without taking care of PSC comments. Reviews were added on this PRs and we received no answers, we raised concerns about it and you couldn't give any compromises. In my opinion, this a rude way to act on a community environment.

  
  

  Personally, it seems that you are enforcing a picture where people against Alexis solution are "bad people" that are against community health. But, IMO, we delivered comments and opinions and we were ignored everytime. Even so, in the explanation of how the meeting was, it was something like: Some people opinons, but it is just opinions... Alexis thinks that his code is better, so his code is better(without proofs)... However, even Alexis confesed that he was not doing a proper work as maintainer of the tool. Sorry if some people thinks I am too direct or rude, but sometimes people need to be clear and expose their fears and concerns.

  
  

  Also, some PSC offered their help (Pedro and myself for example) in order to get a a middle solution, but we received no answer on that again. 

  
  

  Maybe merging the PRs directly was not the best option, but it was clear that it was a "all or nothing" approach from Alexis side as he refused to get a middle solution no matter the comments or problems raised from the other side. IMO, merging Tecnativa's PRs was a good way to proceed, as Alexis was not giving any options to get a common ground and we have been waiting several months for this.

  
  

  Personally, I have been in similar situations where two people offered different solutions for the same problem and both parties tried to converge. In this case, only one of them proposed things to converge. The other one, made a fork and tried to enforce their opinion no matter what (even loosing work from other people...)

  
  

  Kind regards,

  
  

  El vie, 18 abr 2025 a las 17:43, Stéphane Bidoul (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
  

  Hi everyone,

  
  

  As we are Friday 18th, have we obtained more information from Odoo about their intentions with these fields?

  
  

  Pedro, I find it really rude that you closed PRs without waiting for the conclusion of this conversation.

  
  

  Anyway, since this is done, I conclude that the decision is taken, and it is not possible to converge for 18.

  
  

  I am disappointed and I see that as a kind of failure for our community that a fork has to happen, but this is the only way forward I see. 

  
  

  The only possible solution that our tooling supports is creating modules with new names. Since these modules will contain models with identical names, we need to declare them conflicting with the existing ones in their manifests.

  
  

  A new repo is not strictly necessary but seems useful to reduce confusion. As I re-read the thread, there was agreement on that.

  
  

  I don't have a strong opinion on the name of the new repo. Alexis' proposal of bank-payment-native is better that anything else I can think of so far. Let's open the PR on repo-maintainer-conf. We can still adapt the name if a better one emerges.

  
  

  Could the READMEs of each repo (and if possible each addons) reference each other so users can make informed decisions and encourage future convergence?

  
  

  Ah, one last thing. I'm also saddened by the ad-hominem attacks in this thread. This is definitely not what we want in a thriving community. Maintaining open source projects is not easy, and if perfect maintainers exist I don't know them.

  
  

  To conclude, let's recognize that if convergence is not possible, exploring different approaches is also healthy, and OCA can provide room for that.

  
  

  Wishing you a nice weekend,

  
  

  -Stéphane

  
  

  
  

  On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 11:06 AM Graeme Gellatly <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
  

  Just ping me if you need review, unfortunately we get failure trying to test locally, but we are in the middle of a 450 module migration, down to last dozen or so, most ultimately depending on payment order. We have production data, freshly migrated via enterprise to do real proper testing on. Only problem we face is we can't aggregate the current merge requests.  Although maybe there is a better way we can do that.

  
  

  merges:

      - origin $ODOO_VERSION

      # Can't merge 1439 at the moment because of this

      # test-requirements.txt commit:

      # befd64bd07aaa293026b648bc06494d6f1b466fc

      # https://github.com/OCA/bank-payment/pull/1439/

      #- origin refs/pull/1438/head # 'account_payment_mode'

      #- origin refs/pull/1439/head # 'account_payment_partner'

      #- origin refs/pull/1440/head # 'account_payment_order'

  
  

  On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 7:22 PM Pedro M. Baeza <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
  

  I'm disappointed that both Virginie's summary and Alexis' reply appears to say "Alexis' proposal is better, but...", when I exposed clearly in the meeting and previously written on the threads that the main problems are:

  
  

  - The switch to account.payment.method.line is not better. It provokes a lot of work to do, user adaptation, etc, with no clear benefit.

  - The current proposed code starts from a fork done 2 years ago, not having all the work done meanwhile in the main branch.

  - It contains a lot of datamodel changes apart from the main question, which are the same problematic.

  
  

  And again, I'm not saying the current code quality on the XML export is the best, but that it should be worked on as a separate proposal, not trying to impose all the changes together. I even offered to help him to extract that improvement to be proposed over current OCA code, but my offering seems to not serve for anything...

  
  

  I'm also surprised about the washing done on Alexis' attitude, while he clearly recognized it.

  
  

  Anyway, I continue with the merging of the current modules that is blocking me and a lot of other good contributors, and I have already spent a lot of time on this topic.

  
  

  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
  

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

  
  

  
  

  --
  

  Enric Tobella Alomar

  CEO & Founder
  

  
  

  www.dixmit.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 Stéphane Bidoul - 07:21 - 18 Apr 2025

• Re: The future of oca/bank-payment

  Bravo, Enric, thanks for these words that I totally shared.

  
  

  Stéphane, Friday 18th was the deadline, the limit date, giving by Virginie to heard a decision on Alexis side if he wants to accept my offering of converging the good things of his proposal (like the XML export refactoring) into the current one, and put in pause (which is not the same as to reject) the switch to that fields till 19, while we get more information from Odoo what are their intentions with them, or directly see if Odoo expands their usage, but he was pretty clear that he doesn't want to converge in any case in 18 in this message, and proposing something impossible: once you split into 2, join both forks again is not going to happen. And less with a person that has proved now that has no will of wanting to converge. Or the rest follows whatever he wants to propose, or no more effort on his part. So, what I did is to follow our path. No need to wait more because nothing will change waiting till today.

  
  

  I reiterate again my will of putting more of my time extracting the improvements on the XML export code if you at least accept to resign on some things for 18.0 while we continue investigating, but if not, I think this is a definitive schism with a lot of consequences.

  
  

  Regards.

  ---

  by Pedro M. Baeza - 07:16 - 18 Apr 2025

37 more replies