2010/3/21 Philippe Clérié :
> That's what I understood from the conversation about 2.0. At the same time,
> I wasn't sure if it was a "hard" commitment, or a "pie in the sky, nice to
> have" wish. I'm sure it's not going to be easy to do.
>
> Perhaps I am anticipating too much, but if it's going to
That's what I understood from the conversation about 2.0. At the same time,
I wasn't sure if it was a "hard" commitment, or a "pie in the sky, nice to
have" wish. I'm sure it's not going to be easy to do.
Perhaps I am anticipating too much, but if it's going to be possible to
write a non-web cl
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Robert James Clay wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:58 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
>> LedgerSMB 1.2.21 has been released.
>
>
> LSMB v1.2.21 does not appear to have been tagged? (I.E.;
> tags/1.2.21 does not appear to be present in the repository...)
>
Oops...
On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:58 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> LedgerSMB 1.2.21 has been released.
LSMB v1.2.21 does not appear to have been tagged? (I.E.;
tags/1.2.21 does not appear to be present in the repository...)
Jame
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:03 PM, David Godfrey wrote:
> Fairly much as I thought, I would still propose that remote_addr should
> be present for all client types, as you could well have, for example a
> thick client that served an unusual interface; maybe a fully automated
> multi point warehous
