|
From: bika - l. <le...@bi...> - 2006-09-26 07:35:37
|
ok this post pre-dates some of those circulated now .... Roch=C3=A9 Compaan wrote: >I see a lot of renames=20 > job cards to work sheets statements to invoices ? >being checked into the trunk at the moment and >this worries me for the following reasons: > >1. They haven't been discussed at all. > =20 > They've been in the issue tracker for long, brought on now by latest=20 rounds of lab visits, available development capacity and request by the=20 sponsor of upcoming development. I cleared the changes with existing clie= nts But yes they should've been mentioned here, my apologies. There might be=20 users of Bika out here who would not like the name changes but are not=20 actively participating or contributing. Active sponsors - mainly Bika=20 lab systems and her clients - would naturally be heard clearest Comment, suggestions please >2. Why do we risk such a major refactoring just before getting ready for >a release. > =20 > Relatively small risk calculated. We are testing and the initial release=20 of 1.2 will be as 'Release Candidate' not intended for conversions, see=20 below >3. How will the data of existing bika installations out there be >migrated or are simply going to say "INCOMPATIBLE". > =20 > For the release candidate, yes. Downloads are continuing apace at the=20 moment and we want to rather give new downloaders a better product. A=20 lot of refinement has gone into Bika since 1.1 months ago >4. Are you sure you've got the semantics right. I for instance don't >feel that the semantics are clear with regards to statement and invoice. > =20 > The current Bika 'statement' is really an invoice as it does not reflect=20 receipts. The name was inherited from our first client. Bika's upcoming=20 financial software interfaces will export this data as invoices to be=20 incorporated in true statements. Bika's invoices currently don't include=20 orders (of lab products other than analysis services) information and=20 this will be modified for version 1.3 >In fact I don't even think financial stuff belongs in the core but >didn't want to risk taking this out before releasing 1.2. > =20 > In my experience most commercial labs want financials, intra=20 organisational labs for cost centre accounting. When Bika's accounting=20 side grows bigger, we may decide to skin it off >Am I missing a spec for the above? When was it reviewed and discussed? > =20 > The invoices issue is a long open feature request. Renaming Jobcards was=20 not documented. I really don't think either deserves a spec as it is a=20 simple enough top level concept lemoene project manager www.bikalabs.com |