John, devs, If someone has time to review my very small patch for #336843 (attach files/urls to transactions) in bugzilla, or fix differently, we've still got a small bug with the new associate functionality I'd love to see fixed before release.
The patch fixes a broken dialog and disables/greys out the execute option if the link is unset. (As John requested in bugzilla.) Cheers, Patrick On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM, John Ralls <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Geert Janssens <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Saturday 14 December 2013 12:08:17 Geert Janssens wrote: >>> On Saturday 14 December 2013 10:30:14 Cristian Marchi wrote: >>>> Ubuntu 13.04 >>>> SWIG Version 2.0.7 >>>> Compiled with g++ [x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu] >>>> Configured options: +pcre >>>> >>>> I think I need 2.0.10 right? >>> >>> That is: my patch applies only to code generated by 2.0.10 or more >>> recent. Until now GnuCash only required swig 2.0.10 if compiled with >>> guile 2. >>> >>> I didn't consider the option of building gnucash with guile 1.8 and an >>> older version of swig. There is a tiny chance that this patch is not >>> needed either for guile 1.8. So in that case I can simply skip the >>> patch application when building with guile 1.8. If it is mandatory in >>> both cases, I may have to create two patches, one that applies to old >>> swig generated code and one that applies to new swig generated code. >>> >>> I'll check and report back. >>> >> It turns out the patch is only necessary for guile 2. I had already learned >> from the guile >> developers that the string handling changed radically between guile 1.8 and >> 2.0. This was one >> of the side effects. >> >> I have committed r23559 to make sure the swig patch is only applied when >> building with guile >> 2. In that situation we require swig 2.0.10 anyway. >> >> Or more precisely we should require it. I have also committed r23560 to >> improve the swig >> check to test for 2.0.10 when configure detects guile 2. So that should now >> be covered as well. > > Good, and just in time! > > Anyone else have any changes before I make the 2.9.A (think hexadecimally ;-) > ) tarballs? > > Regards, > John Ralls > > > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
