openerp-community team mailing list archive

[Raphael Valyi <rvalyi@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello all,

again, my proposal is not moving anything to Github, it's rather let people
comfortable with it use it instead of convincing them to move to our LP
temporary workarounds. Today many people use Github or Bitbucket already
and as they are more comfortable with is. Some probably wouldn't contribute
if you force them to use Launchpad. Dedicated contributors aren't stupid.
If they use Github or Bitbucket or X aside from Launchpad that they are
forced to use for the core, it's really for some good reason as dealing
with several forges do make some overhead for them too. But they feel that
many-forge overhead is balanced with what they win for their daily tasks.

When I went to France last year, I had the opportunity to branch the addons
in just 10 minutes, that was a completely different reality and I
understand you don't really understand. But hell that 10 minute you have in
France easily becomes 45 minutes here. When I teach the tech CTP training;
I cannot let people do the full bzr installation because our broadband (a
good one in Brazil still) would make this last for a full day. Consider
servers are around 8x more expensive here (while the economy is 2x to 3x
lower), we also even lack of CPU and RAM in a cloud prospective when
working with bzr... I mean bzr/LP really have an issue some will not live
with for their daily devops. If I even spent days making git mirrors of the
bzr core branches it wasn't just to loose my time because I don't like the
Launchpad CSS theme. When you think that half OpenERP SA is India based,
where they share the same issues, I cannot understand they sticked to bzr.

But again, it's not about the forge. It's about whether it's smart or not
to put many modules in the same branch. I think it's just a work around we
did in urgency when making our way out from the extra-addons single god
branch as we didn't have decent package management.

Are there people not convinced that putting many module inside the same
repo is an anti-pattern?

@Joel,
I think the experience you had 2 days ago: not knowing what would be the
best way to publish and share your backported addons branch for NGO is the
perfect illustration of why putting many modules inside the same branch
only lead to chaos. If we had one module per branch instead, you would just
branch two or three modules and share your requirement.txt and voila: no
push the world to LP, no dependency hell, straightforward collaboration.

So again, since managing manually 100 branches just for the core isn't
doable because package management hasn't been taken seriously till now,
yes, we have to do some grouping to manage say 10 branches instead of 100.
But I say let's keep in mind this is only a ugly workaround and let's don't
encourage people to grow this anti-pattern if there is no requirement to do
so.

So since putting many modules inside the same branch is an anti-pattern,
then I say: let people develop module where they want, specially if it's
not a core module everybody should improve.

Again, just my little opinion.

-- 
Raphaël Valyi
Founder and consultant
http://twitter.com/rvalyi <http://twitter.com/#!/rvalyi>
+55 21 2516 2954
www.akretion.com




On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Eric Caudal <eric.caudal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Hi,
> Thanks a lot for the mail and your enormous contribution! you must have
> found the way to fill in 48 h in one day ;)
>
> Despite the quality of github, I still think that the added value of
> moving there is far less than the drawbacks of the moves.
>
> This kind of move must be planned far in advanced and in coordination with
> main project/OpenERP SA.
>
> Having 2 repositories would be a killer for future
> contribution/visibility/coordination.
>
>  Eric Caudal*CEO*
> --*Elico Corporation, Shanghai branch
> OpenERP Premium Certified Training Partner *
> Cell: + 86 186 2136 1670
> Office: + 86 21 6211 8017/27/37
> Skype: elico.corperic.caudal@elico-corp.comhttp://www.elico-corp.com
>
> [image: Elico Corp]
> On 11/07/2013 12:32 AM, Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero wrote:
>
>  Hi, community,
>
>  Sorry in advance for the long message.
>
>  I think we have to talk about two different topics that are under the OCA
> umbrella: OCB branches and community repositories.
>
>  For *OCB branches*, there are not too much discussion: it's mandatory
> that we have them on Launchpad, because there are too many dependencies on
> LP that cannot be avoided (see this Olivier Dony answer<https://lists.launchpad.net/openerp-community/msg03629.html>about this question on other thread) and we must go here together with
> OpenERP S. A.
>
> About *community repositories*, the question that Raphael has exposed is
> critical: the future and maintanability of them. Having lived a part of the
> evolution of them, this is what I think:
>
>    - In some way, we are trying to compensate the lack of a global
>    quality OpenERP repository. OpenERP Apps doesn't count, because the
>    categorization in it is not very accurate (it depends on the module
>    manifest) and there is a lot of "dummy" modules that makes a few (usability
>    module, for example).
>     - The only way we have for now is to group relevant modules in a
>    repository to make it in somehow available to the groups of interest.
>    - We have used Launchpad to continue with the same tools as the mother
>    project.
>    - These tools have conditioned the organization / reviewing process.
>    - Although we are admitting a lot of new modules, it follows some
>    criteria (for now based on the sense of the reviewers) to avoid only
>    usability modules (we have talked about this on other thread also).
>    - Reviewers can use their expertise to teach newcomers on good
>    practises, and these newcomers will be soon the next teachers (this is for
>    example my case). This musn't been interpreted as a dictatorial regime, but
>    some work rules to assure quality. If these practises are not correct, we
>    can change or refine them.
>    - We don't have the obligation to maintain across the versions all the
>    modules that are included in some momment on the community repositories,
>    but to assure that when something arrives to them (a new module or an
>    adaptation to a new version of an old one), it has enough quality to enter.
>    - These reviewings can be exhausting, but we are attracting each day
>    more contributors that helps with this process.
>    - Nobody have the obligation to publish their modules on community
>    repositories. They can use their own repositories, even hosting on others
>    CVS.
>    - My hope is to set these repositories as the reference where someone
>    goes when he wants to contribute.
>
> So, said that, to keep this initiative healthy, this is IMHO what we have
> to do:
>
>    - Set clear rules for the reviewing process. This is already done and
>    will be merged on official documentation.
>    - Set a path to contributors to become reviewers.
>    - Reward contributors with some visibility on OCA mediums (web and so
>    on), to encourage new contributions.
>    - Set rules for admission of modules. This is not easy, but it can be
>    done with a few exceptions.
>
> Now, about *Launchpad and GitHub*, I feel the same as Raphael in the
> questions he told (performance, acknowledgment, subprojects, etc), and
> maybe we can switch community repositories to GitHub to avoid questions
> like the one that has started this debate, but this must be assured:
>
>    - We have a way to integrate translations for easy contributions. I'm
>    already working on having Launchpad translations on community repositories
>    and I see this as mandatory.
>    - We must assure atribution and permissions.
>    - We cannot lose contribution history.
>    - Reconstruct documentation with the new contribution path.
>    - We must have anyway synched Launchpad repository/repositories to
>    enable modules on apps.openerp.com.
>
> As you see, this a lot of work to do and questions to solved, but Raphael,
> if you're willing to work on this, I can help you and propose to the
> community a concrete proposal to make the switch.
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>
> 2013/11/6 Raphael Valyi <rvalyi@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>>  On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Joël Grand-Guillaume <
>> joel.grandguillaume@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>  First thanks you Michel to take the time for that ! Now, I'm a bit
>>> concerned because we didn't really face this before.
>>>
>>>  The
>>> https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/openobject-addons/7.0-booking-chart
>>>  is more a module that should be included in one of our project, and I
>>> don't which one, any idea ?
>>>
>>>  Then the branch of the
>>> https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/web-addons/7.0-web-unleashed
>>> is on the right place, but it contains a branch replicated from
>>> github... That prevent any merge to be done in the "official" community
>>> branch here : lp:web-addons<https://code.launchpad.net/%7Ewebaddons-core-editors/web-addons/7.0>
>>>
>>>  That's a bit sad.. Any suggestion here ? How to handle GitHub branches
>>> ?
>>>
>>
>>
>>  Hello Joël and others,
>>
>>  if a branch is Github driven and replicated on Launchpad, merging a
>> Launchpad MP isn't that hard: in your git branch just import the branch
>> using the native git ber remote helper
>> http://felipec.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/git-remote-hg-bzr-2/
>>  merge inside your git using usual git merge command, push to Github
>> (then auto-replicated to Launchpad) and voila! Still Github submitted
>> merges are easier to deal with.
>>
>>  Of course, now if a module should integrate a branch driven on
>> Launchpad, then probably it's better to let it be developed on Launchpad.
>>
>>  Now a bit more about this: "should a module integrate some existing
>> Launchpad branch?"
>> In any case, people should remember that we currently group modules
>> together just because OpenERP don't have any decent package manager that
>> deal with version constraints and multiple repo location. And as you read
>> this, please OpenERP SA don't try to reinvent a package manager (apps?),
>> that's something hard, OpenERP should standardize instead of wasting
>> resource on these solved problems.
>> And again, it's not like if I am only "talking":
>>
>> https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openobject-server/trunk-extra-depdencies-info/+merge/114172<https://code.launchpad.net/%7Eakretion-team/openobject-server/trunk-extra-depdencies-info/+merge/114172>
>>
>>  But in any case, grouping modules in the same branch is rather a
>> temporary artifact and a bad design than anything else.
>>
>>  Instead, once it becomes decent to install pinned versions via package
>> manager and test with standard Continuous Integration tooling,
>> **we should tend to 1 module = 1 branch**
>> That's how all the modular dynamic ecosystems work. Of course, we could
>> still have a few exceptions. If you take the Ruby ecosystem (extremely
>> modular and works well), you see that usually 1 module = 1 Github repo. But
>> as for the Rails repo, it's 5 modules altogether in the same repo (but only
>> 5, while a typical Rails project will depend on 50+ modules). It's an
>> exception and it still works. I know it less, but I think it's the same for
>> Pypi, right?
>>
>>  If we keep grouping modules blindly, that will not scale in term of
>> complexity: soon there will be tons of merge for modules that are unknown
>> to most of a project team, that will be slow/frustrating or badly reviewed.
>> We will have branches of these god branches incompatible between them and
>> branch cross dependencies nightmares.
>>
>>  With that in mind, I think it would be an error to think that only a
>> few people should determine a single forge for all the OpenERP eco-system,
>> specially if that forge sucks (I didn't tell Launchpad sucks, you are
>> interpreting here ;-)
>>
>>  I think it really make sense to use a single forge for the core, but as
>> for the whole eco-system, we would try to impose bad tooling to good
>> willing people and that will not work.
>>
>>  It's cool also to have OpenERP SA and OCA doing some centralization
>> work trying to develop and review core modules, but in any case, it will
>> never scale to imagine that just a dozen of people will review the entire
>> eco-system at every-commit. I think that instead there will be lot's of
>> projects, lot's of team, ideally good practices in many places and possibly
>> some centralization but only for the core things. If if try to centralize
>> and decide for everything, then we will have a sub-optimal core (because
>> work is diluted with non core things) and a frustrated community that see
>> its freedom to innovate restricted.
>>
>>  Now
>> <my personal opinion about Launchpad and bzr>
>> it does the job, but hell it doesn't do it well. Here it's very common
>> that bzr branch --stack addons takes over 20 minutes (1h30 without stacked)
>> vs 8 minutes for the same Github shallow clone. Want to compare
>> purchase_requisition in 7.0 against trunk? in git it's a breeze, in bzr
>> slow as hell. If you have a bzr branch that you want to do pull after some
>> 2 months (branch for some customer?), bzr pull can easily take more than 1
>> hour... (and we tried everything, local bzr mirrors etc...)
>>  Also I don't see much activity on bzr repo to fix this. It isn't really
>> cloud ready and it's like both bzr and Launchpad are loosing the battle
>> here.
>> So I'm perfectly okay to contrib on Launchpad. But when I do so, I always
>> think it's temporary and that one day anyway Launchpad will probably
>> announce that it's closing and we will need to put all these little team
>> and karma in the trash and move all that to some git (or hg) forge.
>> Other things I don't like about LP: it really badly sells a project:
>> navigation is awkward to newcomers, documentation isn't integrated, project
>> dynamism doesn't drive to adhesion. Also, we aren't as rich as SAP or
>> Microsoft, right? So what we need? We need contributors hell! but again
>> Launchpad badly reward contributors vs Github that does it so well that a
>> Github profile starts to be what a recruiter will look at to evaluate a job
>> candidate (compare this to hackable karma...)
>> Anyway this is just
>> </my personal opinion about Launchpad and bzr>
>>  (now I said it)
>>
>>
>>  So as a conclusion:
>> I say no to a dogma that we should group modules inside the same
>> branches. That's only a temporary work-around while some believe or make
>> believe things like apps is more important than pip modules.
>>
>>  In the meanwhile, it's not because that there are several branches that
>> there cannot be projects hub and their teams: a common team could take care
>> of several projects, on several branches and possibly forges.
>>
>>
>>  Finally, I think we should investigate the great work of Vo Minh Thu
>> regarding OpenERP module packaging:
>> http://assertive.io
>>
>>  My issue still is: if we have a new addons version at every commit,
>> then for any delta update pip update of the addons it will probably
>> re-download 400+ Mo of all the fresh addons vs a few ko if you were doing a
>> bzr or git pull. Again, not exactly cloud ready...
>> Given the very relative stability of OpenERP, I only have seen success of
>> people doing these delta updates on their projects to fix bugs as they
>> encounter and fix them. Today I don't see this working with assertive yet.
>> I may just be dreaming, but instead I was thinking about something like:
>> for all modules we have git-subtree (no working bzr equivalent!) cron that
>> put every module in a single branch: the module version get incremented
>> only if this particular module receives a commit. Possibly, a translation
>> commit is the z of the x.y.z semver. Then doing pip update would
>> re-download the module only if it received commits, and possibly only if
>> these commits aren't just translation.
>>
>>
>>  My two 2 cts. Thanks to all for these input about that essential topic.
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  Raphaël Valyi
>> Founder and consultant
>> http://twitter.com/rvalyi <http://twitter.com/#%21/rvalyi>
>>  +55 21 2516 2954 <%2B55%2021%202516%202954>
>> www.akretion.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community-reviewer
>> Post to     : openerp-community-reviewer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community-reviewer
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
> Post to     : openerp-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
> Post to     : openerp-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>