On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 02:42:54PM -0400, Josh Sled wrote: > On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 14:28 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > > 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. > > Gnucash currently depends on a copy of QOF which was birthed inside > gnucash itself. QOF should become an independent library, which gnucash > then depends on as any other caller. The extrication of QOF involves > changing some facilities at the border of the two. > > A good example is the gnc-trace.c-defined logging and module stuff, > which is presently gnucash-specific, but really should be part of QOF. > > I'm sure that I'm not sure about all of the details of it; perhaps Neil > can breifly summarize what's left. I don't believe that it relates to > the G2 port at all.
Then why is it happening in the G2 branch?!! I want to base my patches on the tree that will only be moving toward a feature-comparable G2 release, not a tree that is moving toward a QOF factoring. How would David like it if I were doing the register rewrite in the tree he was trying to release? How is QOF pullout any different? -chris _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
