← Back to team overview

openerp-community team mailing list archive

Re: OCA repositories naming convention


Hi Joél.

I changed already, (I can remake the job no problem) but I am not agreed
with some points you mention.

2014-06-30 9:54 GMT-04:30 Joël Grand-Guillaume <

> Thanks for bringing your help here. I just have a doubt on localization
> name.
> I rather prefer to keep the name of the "locale-country" instead of
> "l10n-country_iso_code". My arguments for that is :
>  * Those repository belong to the local community (Spain, France, and so
> on..)

Got it, and I don't have problem with that, it is clear, but a repository
AFAICK is a set of developments from a community Right?.

Then I am agreed with you on it.

>  * They may contain other modules that are not "l10n_like"

Here I am not totally agreed.

I understand it is a fact that it is "possible" but IMHO it is not
"recomendable" a set of l10n_* modules should be only to comply with "laws"
any other feature should belogn to other branch/repository/topic.


My reason is that if we start doing generic things in local community
branches then we will re-make a lot of things and the "reasons" to put this
modules can become too subjectives.

I understand it is not this way today, but there is a lot of things in
local repositories that can't be supported by a "legal" statement.

In our case we develop things "by law" and things "cool to have because
market ask for it" but we have clearly diferenciated both of them (even in
separated branches).

A set of modules l10n_* IMHO should be to comply with the law.

>  * The country name is easy to remember and search for

I am using l10n-countryname are you agreed on that?

> So, to summarize, my opinion is that it's better to have the name of the
> country as it represent the work of the whole locale community and not
> "only" the l10n_* modules.

Agreed if this should be the vision of all, but technically speaking,
l10n_* should be modules __only__ to comply with law. We haver different
points of view there.

Again, I can re-do the job of rename them, but I am not agreed with this
specific point.

How we solved this topic?.

We have 2 subset of modules:

1st set are 100% law.
 2nd set are this modules which depend from generic modules and are "cool
to have" features, but not mandatory for the country.

- Talking about experience:

In the past (v5) we had a lot of features inside l10n_ve and l10n_mx
modules, which in the future were needed by ourself in other countries, and
when we deploy the branches it becomes a big mess, because some modules in
one branch (mx) were mandatory "by law" and the "other topic modules" brake
the system because functionally depend of other localization.

We need to help local communities with this topic because if not it will
bring a mess of not-l10n functionalities in local communities.

- "Merged Solution".

We can have "both" l10n-country (legal modules/reports).
"country" - "Cool to have features due to the market."

Saludos Cordiales

Nhomar G. Hernandez M.
Skype: nhomar00
Web-Blog: http://geronimo.com.ve
Servicios IT: http://vauxoo.com
Linux-Counter: 467724
twitter @nhomar