> thierry writes:
> I do not know what went wrong, but I am unable to browse the history of the
> *content* of the commits of ledger-mode.texi. Either via github, or via
> magit, I can see the *header* (date, commit message) of the commit, but I am
> unable to browse the content of the commi
Hi John and all,
One year that I have not posted here, very busy at work, and girlfriend has
come in life...
I do not know what went wrong, but I am unable to browse the history of the
*content* of the commits of ledger-mode.texi. Either via github, or via
magit, I can see the *header* (date,
> "A" == Alexis writes:
A> can you include the doc/ledger-mode.texi file in the ledger-mode repo
A> also? I think it makes sense to move the documentation to the sources.
Done, complete with the history for that file along the second merge parent.
--
John Wiegley GPG fing
Hi John,
can you include the doc/ledger-mode.texi file in the ledger-mode repo
also? I think it makes sense to move the documentation to the sources.
Cheers
Alexis
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ledger" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
I agree. I will work this this weekend.
On Thursday, August 4, 2016, Simon Michael wrote:
> This is great. It will be clearer what's happening in each project. It's
> also nice that ledger-mode's commit history was preserved.
>
> Craig, how about moving ledger-mode issue tracking to github ? Thi
Submitting a quick PR to MELPA here:
https://github.com/melpa/melpa/pull/4099, unless @purcell is watching this
mailing list?
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:10 PM Simon Michael wrote:
> This is great. It will be clearer what's happening in each project. It's
> also nice that ledger-mode's commit hist
This is great. It will be clearer what's happening in each project. It's
also nice that ledger-mode's commit history was preserved.
Craig, how about moving ledger-mode issue tracking to github ? This
seems like a great time.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
I would suggest just using semver, treating a bump of the required Ledger
version as a breaking change and noting the minimum required Ledger version
in the release notes. I'm saying this with no knowledge of whether Ledger
likes semver or has a problem with unsynchronized version numbers/large
maj
Having a tight coupling between ledger and ledger-mode versions would have
been a problem even when they were in the same repo, since there's not much
to encourage users to make sure to carefully upgrade them simultaneously.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Craig Earls wrote:
> I will use a separ
I will use a separate version number. Up to this point there hasnt been one
they are very loosely coupled. I am open to suggestions. Ledger mode is
mostly getting bug fixes no features have been added in a few years now.
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016, Ben Finney
wrote:
> "John Wiegley" > writes:
> "BF" == Ben Finney writes:
BF> So, my question was based on the assumption that until now they are both
BF> on a single release cycle, and both have an identical version at all
BF> times. Is that assumption correct?
Yes, they were part of the same source code before. There was only one
rel
"John Wiegley" writes:
> > "BF" == Ben Finney writes:
>
> BF> Are you de-coupling the release cycles, or will ‘ledger’ and
> BF> ‘ledger-mode’ still track the same version and release at the same
> BF> time? How will that be managed?
>
> They don't need to be exactly synced
So, my question
> "CE" == Craig Earls writes:
CE> Works for me. As far as synchronizing releases there isnt much necessary.
CE> Unless the interface changes ledger-mode is happy with 3.x version.
Ok, we now have a new repository under the Ledger organization:
https://github.com/ledger/ledger-mode
I ha
Works for me. As far as synchronizing releases there isnt much necessary.
Unless the interface changes ledger-mode is happy with 3.x version.
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016, Ben Finney
wrote:
> "John Wiegley" >
> writes:
>
> > Just wanted to let you know that I'll be splitting ledger-mode and the
>
> "BF" == Ben Finney writes:
BF> Are you de-coupling the release cycles, or will ‘ledger’ and
BF> ‘ledger-mode’ still track the same version and release at the same time?
BF> How will that be managed?
They don't need to be exactly synced, unless there is a change in the data
protocol used be
"John Wiegley"
writes:
> Just wanted to let you know that I'll be splitting ledger-mode and the
> Emacs code into its own repository within the ledger organization on
> GitHub soon.
Are you de-coupling the release cycles, or will ‘ledger’ and
‘ledger-mode’ still track the same version and releas
Much in favor of this :)
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ledger" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to ledger-cli+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.c
1+ agree ! It makes sense!
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2 de ago de 2016, at 19:03, Jacob MacDonald wrote:
>
> Big fan of the change! I'll be on the lookout for it as I pull it myself
> instead of using MELPA.
>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:21 PM John Wiegley wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Just wanted
Big fan of the change! I'll be on the lookout for it as I pull it myself
instead of using MELPA.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:21 PM John Wiegley wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Just wanted to let you know that I'll be splitting ledger-mode and the
> Emacs
> code into its own repository within the ledger organ
19 matches
Mail list logo