OK, I have worked out how to add a configure option to disable the register2 parts, will raise bug with patch later.
Robert On 23 October 2013 11:41, Geert Janssens <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > On Tuesday 22 October 2013 12:49:57 John Ralls wrote: > > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Geert Janssens <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I do encourage you to get used to svn/git, and as John proposes, > > > > clone the gnucash repository on github. I'm not sure what would be > > > > the best starting point for a branch, r23314 (which you would > > > > revert immediately in your next commit), or r23313, which doesn't > > > > need any reverting. Both will cause some rebasing/merging issues > > > > eventually. Perhaps John has a better idea. > > > > > > > > In any case, it would be good if you regularly push your development > > > > branch in your github clone so other developers can follow your > > > > progress. > > > > > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Christian Stimming <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Just removing the code will almost surely introduce plenty of > > > > merging errors the next time any of us or you try to merge > > > > non-trivial changes from gnucash SVN. Basically, if you remove the > > > > code, it means you are going to maintain a private branch of > > > > gnucash SVN, not in any git or svn management, but just by keeping > > > > the changed files on your local harddisk. Out of the many available > > > > options of maintaining a separate branch (be it git somewhere or > > > > svn somewhere or whatever), this one is definitely the worst > > > > choice. I'd strongly suggest to create a configure switch instead, > > > > and keeping almost all code in SVN as well. > > > Looks like Geert reverted the reversion patch. > > > > > > I was going to suggest that Robert branch after the reversion patch > > > and immediately revert it in his branch: > > > git revert 22eff28 > > > Then he can rebase from trunk periodically > > > git rebase trunk reg-2-branch > > > to prevent bit-rot on his branch. I do this on my private feature > > > branches, it works quite well. > > > > > That approach is fine with me as well, but wouldn't that result in more > merge conflicts as time goes by ? > > > > Hmm, I'll just stop reverting reversals and let Robert choose what he > prefers. > > > > Geert > _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
