Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

Am 03.01.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Derek Atkins: > I see no reason that we can't jump from 2.7.x to 3.0[.0] when we release. > And since we DID upgrade to GTK3, I think we should do that. +1 > As for whether to drop the third entry is less important to me, but I > still think it makes sense to have

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

John Ralls writes: >> 2. Versioning. >> >> We currently use a version scheme gigantic.major.minor[-build]. Like 2.6.19 >> (and an optional -2 if we had to release more than once to get it right). >> For >> the 3 levels we really only use two. The 2 in front has been

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

Op vrijdag 29 december 2017 18:23:57 CET schreef John Ralls: > > On Dec 29, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Geert Janssens > > wrote:> > > Op vrijdag 29 december 2017 10:11:08 CET schreef Alen Siljak: > >> I'd like to add that, to me, the difference between stable and unstable > >>

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

> On Dec 29, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Geert Janssens > wrote: > > Op vrijdag 29 december 2017 10:11:08 CET schreef Alen Siljak: >> I'd like to add that, to me, the difference between stable and unstable >> version is obvious enough if I see v2.8.0-alpha1, 2.8.0-alpha2, >>

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

Op vrijdag 29 december 2017 10:11:08 CET schreef Alen Siljak: > I'd like to add that, to me, the difference between stable and unstable > version is obvious enough if I see v2.8.0-alpha1, 2.8.0-alpha2, > 2.8.0-beta1, 2.8.0-rc1, and then 2.8.0. I see no need for separate version > numbers. That's

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

lt;geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be> To: gnucash-devel@gnucash.org Cc: "Alen Siljak" <alen.sil...@gmx.com> Subject: Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts I do agree up to some point. I consider the scheme I propose to be mostly a simplified form of the semantic versio

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

Op woensdag 27 december 2017 12:51:32 CET schreef Wm via gnucash-devel: > On 24/12/2017 16:34, Geert Janssens wrote: > > [snips below, hopefully context maintained] > > > 1. Use of namespaces. > > > > For 2.8 I have been working on converting parts of the CSV importer to > > C++. > > And

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

Op maandag 25 december 2017 01:49:41 CET schreef Alen Siljak: > To me, as an outsider and an occassional tester, Semantic Versioning would > make much more sense than any other custom versioning system. Simply > because it is getting common across various software packages and > libraries. It

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

On 24/12/2017 16:34, Geert Janssens wrote: [snips below, hopefully context maintained] 1. Use of namespaces. For 2.8 I have been working on converting parts of the CSV importer to C++. And considering the class structure that is slowly forming there (still in flux as conversion of

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

> On Dec 25, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Geert Janssens > wrote: > > Op maandag 25 december 2017 17:34:22 CET schreef Christian Stimming: >> As for the namespace aliases such as "namespace gia = >> gnc::import::aqbanking", those must not appear in header files, but may >>

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

Op maandag 25 december 2017 17:34:22 CET schreef Christian Stimming: > Hi Geert, > > just two bits of thoughts from my side: > > Am Sonntag, 24. Dezember 2017, 17:34:51 schrieb Geert Janssens: > > 1. Use of namespaces. > > ... nested namespaces ... > > Yes, absolutely. I have quite some

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

Op maandag 25 december 2017 00:34:39 CET schreef John Ralls: > > On Dec 24, 2017, at 8:34 AM, Geert Janssens > > wrote: > > > > 2. Versioning. > > > > We currently use a version scheme gigantic.major.minor[-build]. Like > > 2.6.19 > > (and an optional -2 if we had to

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

Hi Geert, just two bits of thoughts from my side: Am Sonntag, 24. Dezember 2017, 17:34:51 schrieb Geert Janssens: > 1. Use of namespaces. > ... nested namespaces ... Yes, absolutely. I have quite some experience with C++ libraries and applications and I made very positive experience with this

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

To me, as an outsider and an occassional tester, Semantic Versioning would make much more sense than any other custom versioning system. Simply because it is getting common across various software packages and libraries. It might work for the GUI application as well, when referring

Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

> On Dec 24, 2017, at 8:34 AM, Geert Janssens > wrote: > > While we're working hard to get 2.8 ready for official release, the current > state of the code keeps reminding me of a few design related topics I would > like to discuss for the development cycle after

Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts

While we're working hard to get 2.8 ready for official release, the current state of the code keeps reminding me of a few design related topics I would like to discuss for the development cycle after 2.8 has been released. We're still a few months away from that point, but it's a quiet