Just a quick observation.
You see a lot of bug fixes fly by on this mailing list, and yes, the
install process will eventually get some attention too.
However, considering the facts ..
- the codebase was inherited
- the fork emerged because of already existing issues
- during code cleanup more problems emerged
- multiple people are working on addressing the issues
.. I would just make the (IMHO entirely logical) observation that the
original code thus stands a good chance of harbouring significantly more
problems, they just haven't been discovered yet. Let's call it the
iceberg effect.
This leads to an interesting choice, either:
- trust your accounts and their integrity to a team that evidently works
hard to make it work as it should, with pretty defined goals and with
evidence that what they have set themselves out to do is indeed
happening (and you have the option of going the 1.1 or 1.2 route - I'll
go 1.2 as I start afresh anyway) or
- use the original code (i.e. SL) and keep wondering what other problems
you'll never hear about. Personally, that's not quite the sort of beta
test I'd like to be exposed to.
If you have an existing SL system you thus have to assess the risk of
unknown exposures vs the risk of upgrading. The former is a ticking
timebomb, with the latter you have at least some help as far as I can see.
So, to quote Clint Easton: "do you feel lucky?".
/// P ///
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users
