On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:28:49PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > On Wednesday 11 January 2006 11:05 pm, Derek Atkins wrote: > > However, I do want to ask how this distraction is going to help get > > G2 out the door? And yes, I do consider this is a distraction right now. > > Well, if we want a C binary to replace the scripts for G2, then it's fairly > complete. From your reaction, I assume we don't now? I thought we did last > week. It's not dependent on cashutil, it could be implemented in trunk > without all the other cashutil build stuff. It just uses some code that I > developed for cashutil/pilot-qof. (i.e. the CLI component works).
Derek's question _could_ be interpreted as discouraging any change to Gnucash that's not directly and obviously related to releasing G2. Let me offer a slightly different perspective. I don't actually know what changes are in that theoretical set, so here's what I do: When I consider making some particular changes, first I ask if the changes are technically valuable. Then I ask if they might _delay_ or _interfere_ with any potential Gnucash release plans. My experience has been that nobody complains at development that's both technically beneficial, non-distracting and non-interfering, even if it's not clearly preparing a release. So, my advice (for any gnucash developer) is: don't avoid making changes just because you don't think they're release-related. OTOH, large atomic commits that _almost_ work, followed by requests for help in integrating them _are_ a bit distracting, even when they're benefical changes, so I think Derek's concern is valid. -chris _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
