Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] From live discussion with David Godfrey: Merge MC branch to master?

On Oct 18, 2016 02:57, "David G" wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > > On 18/10/16 05:29, Erik Huelsmann wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Yves Lavoie wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm in favor of this. >>> >>> 1- The MC should be part of

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] From live discussion with David Godfrey: Merge MC branch to master?

That sounds along where I was thinking myself. My feeling in terms of numbering is that for the most part once a minor (1.5, 1.6) release is pushed out (ie. 1.5.0 released as such) we should be very cautious about any new or changed features in the release. While deciding *which* features end up

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] From live discussion with David Godfrey: Merge MC branch to master?

Hi Jigme, On 18/10/16 10:38, Jigme Datse Yli-Rasku wrote: > On 2016-10-17 17:52, David G wrote: >> Hi Erik, >> >> >> On 18/10/16 05:29, Erik Huelsmann wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Yves Lavoie >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi,

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] From live discussion with David Godfrey: Merge MC branch to master?

On 2016-10-17 17:52, David G wrote: > Hi Erik, > > > On 18/10/16 05:29, Erik Huelsmann wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Yves Lavoie > > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm in favor of this. >> >> 1- The MC should be part

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] From live discussion with David Godfrey: Merge MC branch to master?

Hi Erik, On 18/10/16 05:29, Erik Huelsmann wrote: On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Yves Lavoie wrote: Hi,

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] From live discussion with David Godfrey: Merge MC branch to master?

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Yves Lavoie 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.