On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 01:08:37PM -0400, Josh Sled wrote: > On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 16:59 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > > I'm hoping someone can clarify for me a confusion about the > > state of the G2 branch. My understanding was basically that G2 was > > feature-frozen like an "rc" kernel - "get what's there working" - > > "bug-fixes only" - whatever you want to call it. > > That's more or less my understanding, but it's an informal one, true. > The goal is strictly and specifically to get gnucash working with > as-close-to-feature parity with 1.8 under gtk/gnome2. That's taken some > interesting twists (gog, gconf), but those are basically in support of > the above. > > We need to get to a G2-supporting release as quickly as possible. > > > > patches a LONG time ago (my fault). If G2 is a "bug-fix-only" branch, > > then it shouldn't slow me down so much to keep my patches fresh > > against G2. > > Well, with respect to the scope of commits, it's not exactly a > "bug-fix-only" branch, but it's not a "dev" branch either. There's some > larger-than-a-bug-fix work to be done; neither QOF-pullout nor > register-rewrite-in-gtk would be on my draft of that change-list, > though.
Right. I thought that the "larger-than-a-bug-fix" work was basically compensating for obsolete dependencies. I agree about register-rewrite. Could you explain what you consider to be QOF-pullout? I mean, how much QOF work is needed to get a G2-supporting release ASAP? This stuff isn't motivated in GNOME2_STATUS. -chris > > ...jsled > -- > http://asynchronous.org/ - `a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo [EMAIL > PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
