Re: [bika-dev] Worrying renames

[bika - l. <le...@bi...>]

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