On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 04:59:35PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote: > Quoting Josh Sled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 16:42 -0400, Josh Sled wrote: > >>(Assuming budgets are in 2.0, which I don't think they should be...) I'd > >>be fine if both FreqSpec and Recurrence are in the code at the commit, > >>and frankly even at the release. Ideally, though, the concepts merge > >>ASAP, and certainly not past the following release. I'm happy to handle > >>the SX side of the switch (as I generally need to cleanup the SX code), > >>but I'm not going to do that until after 2.0. > > > >Eh, sorry; strike the parenthetical in the first line, but I do assert > >the rest. > > I'm not at all comfortable with both FreqSpec and Recurrence being in the > code at releasetime. My reasoning: Datastore issues. We should have > one and only one storage schema for the FS/Rec concept. My hesitancy > for commiting without the merge is that it reduces the "fire" to merge > them. If the code wont be committed without the merge then it provides > more incentive to merge them.. Maybe I'm cynical.
I haven't given this a lot of thought, but don't you *need* both storage schema concurrently in order to provide forward compatibility? I.e. read using old schema, convert, write using new schema. -chris > > -derek > > -- > Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory > Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) > URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH > [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available > _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
