| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Fri Jan 30 00:00:02 CET 2009 | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:06 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <ced@b2ck.com> default * 1172:08e20f298ca5 tryton/tryton/gui/main.py: Add logout before backup database for issue763 | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:07 <CIA-10> tryton: ced roundup * #763/Exception: AccessDenied: [resolved] Fix with changeset 08e20f298ca5 | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:22 <X0d_of_N0d> udono: you around? | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:26 <udono> X0d_of_N0d: yes, but short | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:28 <udono> time | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:29 <X0d_of_N0d> I got the ldap test connection thing working | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:29 <udono> X0d_of_N0d: Yeah great! | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:30 <X0d_of_N0d> I think there are some other things we could do to make it better, but I'd like to move forward with what we've got | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:31 <X0d_of_N0d> first though, the module can't be called "ldap" | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:31 <X0d_of_N0d> the repo should be moved to something like ldap_base | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:31 <X0d_of_N0d> or whatever | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:32 <X0d_of_N0d> otherwise it overlaps the ldap module itself and breaks everything | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:35 <udono> X0d_of_N0d: ok, understand and agree. | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:36 <udono> X0d_of_N0d: But Iam to tired for more, I'll test it tomorrow. | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:36 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, I pushed my changes | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:36 <X0d_of_N0d> I'll wait for you to move the repo before I do anything else | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:36 <X0d_of_N0d> cool? | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:36 <udono> X0d_of_N0d: yes | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:36 <X0d_of_N0d> catch you tomorrow then | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:36 <udono> X0d_of_N0d: where to move the repo? | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:37 <udono> X0d_of_N0d: ldap_base | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:37 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:38 <udono> X0d_of_N0d: http://mercurial.intuxication.org/hg/ldap_base | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:38 <X0d_of_N0d> cool | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:39 <udono> X0d_of_N0d: see you, good night | ||
| 2009-01-30 00:39 <X0d_of_N0d> udono: night man, see you later | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:01 <vengfulsquirrel> Are domains used for validation purposes or just to filter selections? | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:03 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: both | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:05 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Okay with respect to the location type checking it sure would be easier if the type couldn't be changed after creation because there are a multitude of things that need to be checked to guarantee that domains are maintained. | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:06 <vengfulsquirrel> It doesn't seem like just checking for moves be enough. | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:06 <vengfulsquirrel> *will be | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:08 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: for me, it is enough to add a domain on locations in stock.move | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:08 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: and add a constraint on stock.location to check if no move are already created for location of type "view" and "warehouse" | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:09 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:19 <CIA-10> tryton: vengfulsquirrel roundup * #760/View Location Type: Restrict views in stock.move and PackingInternal in stock.packing. | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:20 <CIA-10> tryton: vengfulsquirrel roundup * #760/View Location Type: Added check for moves to stock.location. | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:21 <CIA-10> tryton: vengfulsquirrel roundup * #760/View Location Type: Added type view to stock.location check. | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:21 <vengfulsquirrel> Maybe there is a better way to upload those rather than send them one at a time. | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:24 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: could you just create one patch per functionnality | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:25 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: as it is your first patches, I think it is better that you just copy/paste the diff of your work for review before creating a patch | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:26 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: and an other remarks, try to not let ending space | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:27 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: here for your patches, I prefer to have only to patch files: one for check on warehouse and one that add view type | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:28 <vengfulsquirrel> Do you mean trailing space on a line ? | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:28 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: yes | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:30 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: is it ok for you? | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:38 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: I go to sleep | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:38 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Okay, yeah I have to learn all the hg options, i'll ttyt. | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:38 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: for diff: hg diff | ||
| 2009-01-30 01:38 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah but now I need to diff across a revision. | ||
| 2009-01-30 03:02 -!- ikks(i=igor@190.102.200.188) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 04:30 -!- ikks(i=igor@190.102.200.188) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 05:18 -!- yangoon(n=mathiasb@p549F7424.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 07:28 -!- vengfulsquirrel1(n=ian@c-71-202-125-182.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 07:35 -!- paola(n=paola@host-84-223-76-210.cust-adsl.tiscali.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 07:45 -!- nicoe(n=nicoe@ip-80-236-216-4.dsl.scarlet.be) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 08:09 -!- paola(n=paola@host-84-223-76-210.cust-adsl.tiscali.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 08:10 <CIA-10> tryton: vengfulsquirrel roundup * #760/View Location Type: diff -r 5e68bcf0fcbf -r 2a9aa85c4a2f location.py --- a/location.py Wed Jan 28 14:28:41 2009 -0800 +++ b/location.py Thu Jan 29 16:10:0 ... | ||
| 2009-01-30 08:16 -!- Gedd(n=ged@77.109.114.202.adsl.dyn.edpnet.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 08:24 -!- sharkcz(n=dan@plz1-v-4-17.static.adsl.vol.cz) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 08:26 <CIA-10> tryton: vengfulsquirrel roundup * #760/View Location Type: diff -r 2369cf53348a location.py --- a/location.py Thu Jan 29 23:12:09 2009 -0800 +++ b/location.py Thu Jan 29 23:22:44 2009 -0800 @@ ... | ||
| 2009-01-30 08:27 -!- vengfulsquirrel1(n=ian@c-71-202-125-182.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has left #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 09:01 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@88.217.184.172) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:00 -!- enlightx(n=enlightx@82.112.213.114) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:13 -!- cedk(n=ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:28 <cedk> udono: I just read a little the code of ldap_base | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:29 <cedk> udono: and in the on_change function you define: vals={} | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:29 <cedk> udono: this is not a good practice because {} will be a global instance | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:30 <cedk> udono: and by the way, you use it for the return value, this is also bad because normally you must not change the value given in argument | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:31 <cedk> udono: this kind be linked to the strange behavior explain in on_change_anon_bind | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:31 <udono> cedk: yes, thanks. But what if vals == None ? | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:31 <udono> vals is None= | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:31 <cedk> udono: the framework will always put value in vals | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:32 <cedk> udono: the default signature is: on_change_xxx(self, cursor, user, ids, vals, context=None) | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:32 <cedk> udono: by the way, this is why we set context=None and not context={} | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:33 <cedk> udono: because it can become a memory leak in long run | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:34 <udono> cedk: Ok, thanks a lot, I never mentioned that this could be a problem... | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:34 <cedk> udono: one more remarks, I will raise an exception in the TestServerConnection wizard to have translated message error | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:35 <udono> cedk: where? why? | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:36 -!- bechamel(n=user@85.201.86.139) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:36 <cedk> udono: you fill a response with english string, I will raise an exception to have the message translated | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:37 <cedk> udono: or better a warning, but it is not yet implemented on wizard | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:38 <udono> cedk: I see... hmm I need to use babels _()? | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:39 <cedk> udono: no | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:39 <udono> cedk: hmm, but then the translation isn't in the xx_XX.csv | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:39 <cedk> udono: look at _error_messages | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:40 <cedk> udono: Babel is only for the client | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:40 <cedk> udono: we don't use gettext on the server side because there is some issue with multi-threading | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:41 -!- carlos(n=carlos@89.7.24.44) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:42 <udono> cedk: ok, I get it. | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:43 <udono> cedk: Thanks a lot, I will repair this tonight. | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:43 <udono> cedk: but I cannot use this on a wizzard? | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:44 <udono> cedk: or I cannot use warning on a wizard? | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:44 <cedk> udono: you can use the raise_user_error function but not the raise_user_warning | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:47 <udono> cedk: Yes, thanks a lot. | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:58 <cedk> http://weblog.infoworld.com/fatalexception/archives/2009/01/the_case_agains.html | ||
| 2009-01-30 10:58 <cedk> some good points, and some others less | ||
| 2009-01-30 11:10 <bechamel> cedk: what are the less good points ? | ||
| 2009-01-30 11:11 <cedk> bechamel: good: point 2, 3, 4 | ||
| 2009-01-30 11:38 <udono> bechamel: cedk, for me is 1. one of the best points. | ||
| 2009-01-30 11:39 <cedk> udono: so it depends of what he want to say | ||
| 2009-01-30 11:40 <cedk> udono: if he speak about computing to prepare data to be display in web browser, I agree | ||
| 2009-01-30 11:40 -!- ikks(i=igor@190.102.217.46) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 11:41 <bechamel> udono: there are 3 argument in point 1 | ||
| 2009-01-30 11:41 <cedk> udono: but if it is to put some important computing stuff on client side, I think you can not fully trust the result from the client | ||
| 2009-01-30 11:47 <cedk> udono: and of course it depends of the use of the software | ||
| 2009-01-30 11:53 -!- johbo(n=joh@statdsl-085-016-072-173.ewe-ip-backbone.de) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:01 <udono> bechamel: these are the three arguments for me: | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:01 <udono> 1. Web applications encourage a thin-client approach | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:01 <udono> >> Tryton client is neither a thin client like a Browser nor a fat one like adempierre. Tryton client provides the 'good' architectures from both worlds. | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:01 <udono> 2. Concentrating computing power in the datacenter is fine if you're a Google or a Microsoft, but that approach puts a lot of pressure on smaller players. | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:01 <udono> Tryton can be setup as a single user app without a problem. Furthermore it can easyly extended with more separate user machines | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:01 <udono> 3. security vulnerabilities abound in networked applications, and the complexity of the browser itself seemingly makes bugs inevitable | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:01 <udono> Tryton is a network application. We need to take all the care about vulerabilities like all other. But IE or Firefox are very popular apps so it will take some time if someone writes a virus/keylogger/troyan for tryton... | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:01 -!- Gedd(n=ged@77.109.114.202.adsl.dyn.edpnet.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:04 <cedk> udono: one big issue with browser today is cross-site vulnerability that Tryton have not | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:05 <bechamel> udono: security becomes a problem when your server is world reachable and imo an erp should be restricted to the company intranet | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:06 <cedk> bechamel: but for a webbase application, it can be only local that it can be breaks with cross-site scripting | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:07 <bechamel> cedk: yes, but even if you can get credential with xss, you are stuck as long as you cannot reach the server | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:09 <cedk> bechamel: but you can infect the webbrowser of a use (when he browse the internet) and retreive information when he is connected to the local webserver | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:14 <cedk> bechamel: this is in the point 5 | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:14 <cedk> bechamel: best security is the disable browser :-) | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:15 <bechamel> cedk: yes, finaly all points are good points :) | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:16 <cedk> bechamel: yes but perhaps not enough explain | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:24 <udono> cedk: bechamel, Yes, I agree. | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:25 <udono> bechamel: as I told on our last meeting when you showed me your prototype webclient: Its enough to show and see data on the web. There is no need for manipulating data over a browser... | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:26 <udono> BTW Richard stallman had some general concerns in the guardian about 'cloud computing', too. | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:27 <cedk> udono: web client is not yet cloud computing :-) | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:27 <bechamel> udono: yes but access to data (even readonly data) is already a security problem | ||
| 2009-01-30 12:48 -!- ikks(i=igor@190.102.221.230) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:13 <carlos> I'm late for the discussion, but for a SaS deployment or an internal deployment of Tryton with many clients, having to update all those clients one by one once the server is upgraded is a bit... madness. In this case a web client is the best option. However, if the Tryton's client is able to update itself (once the user confirms it) when a newer server version is detected, then the web client is not so useful anymore | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:15 <bechamel> carlos: yes auto update would be great, like ... firefox :) | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:16 <carlos> bechamel: hmmm, well, something like firefox, only if the new client is able to talk with new and older protocols of Tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:16 <carlos> otherwise, it should depend on the server it connects | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:17 <cedk> I realy hate those kind of auto upgrade feature | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:18 <cedk> in big structure, you don't upgrade software without any rules | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:18 <cedk> and most of the time the user don't have admin access to install software | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:18 <carlos> cedk: well, I'm not talking about checking for upgrades against www.tryton.org but against a server in your company so it's easier to do upgrades | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:19 <cedk> in windows environment, you can put the single exe on a shared folder and everybody use the same exe | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:19 <cedk> and if you get linux client, it is simple to write a script that upgrade packages on demand | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:22 <cedk> or better just use a terminal server if you don't want to manage many OS's | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:22 <carlos> well, I agree that those options may work in many use cases, but for SaS deployments, that's not so easy | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:23 <cedk> carlos: do you really think that a big company will use SAS for his ERP ? | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:24 <carlos> In those cases, you don't control the client computers at all, but you may want to deploy bug fixes to your customers | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:24 <carlos> cedk: well, not at all | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:24 <carlos> but small medium companies will do (that's quite usual in Spain right now) | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:24 <carlos> so everytime there is a security / bug fix | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:24 <cedk> carlos: as you say in SAS you don't control the client computer so you can not push upgrade | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:25 <carlos> that's why adding a way to upgrade the client automatically on connection time is a good thing | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:25 <carlos> or at least warn the user that there is an upgrade | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:25 <cedk> carlos: so automatical upgrade breaks distribution package | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:26 <carlos> well, that's why I said that at least, you should warn the user | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:27 <cedk> carlos: and for windows people, it will be possible | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:27 <carlos> if it's not a distribution package, you can do the upgrade like in Windows | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:27 <carlos> if it's a distribution package, you may provide package upgrades too | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:27 <cedk> the only option, I see it is to put a little icon that says there is a new version of the client for the same branch | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:29 <carlos> that's what I mean, you need a way to notify the user about the upgrade, and they choose to upgrade or not (or an admin may configure it to be automatically updated, but that's a user call) | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:29 <carlos> also, I don't know if this is possible without many problems from the development point of view | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:30 <cedk> carlos: only a notify is possible but no more | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:30 <carlos> do you think is possible to have a Tryton client that is able to speak with a 1.0 server and a 1.2 server at the same time? | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:30 <carlos> so depending on the server you connect to, it uses the 1.0 or the 1.2 protocol? | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:30 <cedk> carlos: we disallow this | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:31 <cedk> carlos: it is not only a matter of protocol but also of features and behavior | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:31 <carlos> I suspected something like that | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:31 <cedk> there is no garantee that the stuff will still work correctly | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:32 <cedk> carlos: we put a check in the client to not allow connecting to a server with a different branch | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:33 <carlos> I know about that, I was just wondering about having such feature in the client, so it can speak with both servers and behave in a different way depending on the server version | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:34 <cedk> carlos: this will put a big overload in the client | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:34 <carlos> I see | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:35 <yangoon> what are you meaning by SAS? | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:36 <carlos> yangoon: Software as a Service | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:37 <carlos> when you charge a monthly fee for hosting Tryton's server and handle its Internet connection, backups and security updates | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:38 <yangoon> carlos: thx, because there exists a SAS Deployment Wizard and the name is a registered trade mark | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:40 <carlos> I guess that's why OpenERP uses 'ondemand' to refer to such service: http://ondemand.openerp.com/ | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:42 <cedk> carlos: by the way, informing users about security update can be made with email | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:44 <carlos> I guess.. | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:58 -!- Gedd(n=ged@77.109.114.202.adsl.dyn.edpnet.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 13:59 -!- enlightx(n=enlightx@host-78-13-112-37.cust-adsl.tiscali.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 14:26 <CIA-10> tryton: matb roundup * #762/KeyError: 'customer_location': [chatting] @bch: Thx for your input! It is really a little bit strange, but the problem was now just gone without any further chnage to the databa ... | ||
| 2009-01-30 14:32 -!- ikks(n=igor@190.144.69.234) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 14:44 <CIA-10> tryton: matb roundup * #761/Stock: Partially assigned packing does not appear under Assigned Packings: No, I didn't try to delete the packing, but the inventory move(s). Trying to do the same once again I experienced the following behaviour: Assign ... | ||
| 2009-01-30 14:48 -!- jporcel(n=jporcel@62.57.72.13.static.user.ono.com) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 14:48 <jporcel> hi there | ||
| 2009-01-30 14:48 <jporcel> jporcel@z.earcon.com | ||
| 2009-01-30 14:49 <jporcel> I'm interested on contribute somehow, I can translate into spanish, catalan and code something if required | ||
| 2009-01-30 14:49 <jporcel> ;-) see you | ||
| 2009-01-30 14:49 <jporcel> (the above is only jabber no mail) | ||
| 2009-01-30 14:49 -!- jporcel(n=jporcel@62.57.72.13.static.user.ono.com) has left #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 15:07 <CIA-10> tryton: ced roundup * #761/Stock: Partially assigned packing does not appear under Assigned Packings: Sorry but I'm pretty sure that you try to remove the packing. Do you type <CTRL>+d ? | ||
| 2009-01-30 17:20 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-3179fcb98d30b7ec) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 17:23 -!- simahawk(n=simao@host-84-222-60-31.cust-adsl.tiscali.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 17:31 -!- vengfulsquirrel(n=ian@c-71-202-125-182.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 17:36 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@port-87-193-170-219.static.qsc.de) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 17:50 -!- paola(n=paola@host-84-223-76-210.cust-adsl.tiscali.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 17:58 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@port-87-193-170-219.static.qsc.de) has left #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 18:38 -!- enlightx(n=enlightx@host-78-13-112-37.cust-adsl.tiscali.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 20:35 -!- juanfer(n=juanfer@190.144.69.234) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 20:43 -!- vengfulsquirrel(n=ian@c-71-202-125-182.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 20:51 -!- Gedd(n=ged@77.109.114.202.adsl.dyn.edpnet.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 21:12 <vengfulsquirrel> Is there a problem with calling function fields from within a _constraints check method ? | ||
| 2009-01-30 21:12 <vengfulsquirrel> *not calling I mean referencing | ||
| 2009-01-30 21:57 -!- paola_(n=paola@host-84-223-76-210.cust-adsl.tiscali.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 22:31 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: don't understand, give an example | ||
| 2009-01-30 23:00 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: http://paste.lisp.org/display/74612 I'd like to call line.location in create_move instead of line.get_location(...) . Are function fields not for internal use and more for the view to use ? | ||
| 2009-01-30 23:06 -!- carlos(n=carlos@89.7.24.44) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 23:06 -!- yangoon(n=mathiasb@p549F7424.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 23:06 -!- panthera(n=daniel@unable-to-package.org) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-30 23:08 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: I made a bunch of changes to the stock module so that I could extend it correctly maybe if you are interested in seeing those I can paste all the diffs into another ticket, if anything just to see examples of problems that could arise when extending it. |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!