On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Yves Lavoie <ylav...@yveslavoie.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm in favor of this.
> 1- The MC should be part of LedgerSMB, not something we promote only on a
> need basis.
> 2- It would get pulled in the distribution stream, contributing to
> marketing of our work. Having apt for the standard and GitHub for MC isn't
> appealing to users.
> 3- We are very few, so removing burdens and freeing time to develop
> quicker should be the goal every time.

It's great to see that is isn't meeting much resistence. However, what
about the (for now) missing data migration? It could end up being a
blocking problem to release 1.6. Do you see that as (accepted) collateral



> Two weeks ago, when he was in Europe, David sat down with me to discuss a
> number of items. Some of those will come later. There was one major issue
> we discussed though and I want to bring our proposal forward here.
> David put forward that having the MC (multi-currency) branch merged to
> master gets a maintenance burden off my shoulders (which it indeed will).
> In addition to that, merging to master early provides for a (hopefully)
> long enough period to shake out any of the problems that it may cause.
> Additionally, his idea is that if this code is on master, it becomes our
> collective problem to create a data migration strategy to MC, whereas
> currently it's probably mostly my problem...
> While I'm not very much in favor of throwing up roadblocks for releases,
> even if they're far in the future. However, I must admit that if there are
> others in favor of moving MC to master so we have it for 1.6, getting rid
> of the maintenance burden (however small) does seem attractive.
> Comments?



http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Ledger-smb-devel mailing list

Reply via email to