-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: Request for Comments: new QIF Importer Datum: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 11:35:56 -0500 Von: Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> An: Christian Stimming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Referenzen: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Did you mean to send this to me personally instead of replying to the list? If not, please feel free to forward this reply back to the list.
Christian Stimming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sounds good to me.
Derek Atkins schrieb:QUESTION: If the user provides multiple files at once and each file has internal ambiguities (e.g. the date format), should the user be asked for each file, or can we assume that all the files have the same format? Perhaps the UI should allow the user to "make this choice for all files"?
The ideal dialog would probably be
"Choose date format [choicebox] [x] Use this choice for all files"
I like this idea....
It doesn't make much sense if a user imports QIF files from different sources, but it is still possible.
OTOH if a user is importing from multiple sources you have the problem that QIF accounts might not map to each other, so you've already got other issues.
Alternatively, the dialog could have a big warning
"Choose date format for all files [choicebox] If some files have a different date format, please go back, unselect them in the file list, and import them in a separate step"
but such a warning doesn't look quite nice...
Agreed.
BTW I haven't noticed your ihtfp.com email addresse
before... Interesting.
Strange. I've been using it for a while.. I swap back and forth when I actually send email, but my commit messages have been using my ihtfp address for over a year.
BTW the other day someone asked why we don't offer MD5's and signatures for our gnucash and openhbci packages, as they (especially with HBCI) are in fact money-critical applications. I replied that we would need some audit trail which we don't have. But to be honest I have no idea about what we would need to do to provide meaningful signed source packages. Do you have some ideas and/or pointers to documents that describe the required steps for this?
Well, supplying MD5s for the packages just implies running md5sum over the package and publishing the number. We could also create a pgp detached signature over the packages and put those on the web site. Neither of these are a tremendous amount of work, but they do add overhead to the packaging system. I've never actually used the RPM PGP feature so I don't know how to do that.
Christian
-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] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
