Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-10 Thread Chris Travers
It occurs to me the best thing to do regarding altering things that may need to be in the reconciliation report is to gather best practices before engaging in documentation. I suspect (but will have to double check) that even GL items with the same source number and date will be aggregated into th

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-10 Thread Chris Travers
I understand the concern about reconciliation. There are current ways to adjust payments/receipts in the UI, but it involves separate transactions. Now that we see the concern, it may be something that can be fixed through documentation. In general, if you issue an payment or overpayment or suc

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-10 Thread Erik Huelsmann
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > "John" == John Locke writes: >John> As mentioned on another thread, one change I would like to be >John> able to make to a few posted invoices: change the contact >John> within a customer -- e.g. to a new ECA. > > In

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-10 Thread Michael Richardson
> "John" == John Locke writes: John> As mentioned on another thread, one change I would like to be John> able to make to a few posted invoices: change the contact John> within a customer -- e.g. to a new ECA. In other words, you write an invoice, send it, and then discover that t

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-10 Thread Michael Richardson
> "Chris" == Chris Travers writes: Chris> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Michael Richardson Chris> wrote: >> If reposted means that I can modify a PO before it is reconciled, >> and then repost it (leaving an audit trail), then I'm okay. Chris> I am not quite sure what

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-09 Thread Chris Travers
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:40 PM, David wrote: > > > On 10/04/12 10:59, John Locke wrote: >> As mentioned on another thread, one change I would like to be able to >> make to a few posted invoices: change the contact within a customer -- >> e.g. to a new ECA. >> >> If we can add notes and change the

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-09 Thread David
On 10/04/12 10:59, John Locke wrote: > As mentioned on another thread, one change I would like to be able to > make to a few posted invoices: change the contact within a customer -- > e.g. to a new ECA. > > If we can add notes and change the contact, that would be really helpful. > +1 As far as

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-09 Thread John Locke
As mentioned on another thread, one change I would like to be able to make to a few posted invoices: change the contact within a customer -- e.g. to a new ECA. If we can add notes and change the contact, that would be really helpful. On 04/09/2012 05:46 PM, Chris Travers wrote: > On Mon, Apr 9,

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-09 Thread Chris Travers
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > If reposted means that I can modify a PO before it is reconciled, and > then repost it (leaving an audit trail), then I'm okay. I am not quite sure what you mean by reconciling PO's, but reposting doesn't apply to PO's. PO's and SO's

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-09 Thread Michael Richardson
If reposted means that I can modify a PO before it is reconciled, and then repost it (leaving an audit trail), then I'm okay. I otherwise make too many errors in a session to have to reverse things. I'm okay with reversing transactions I made in a previous session, but what's a session in the alw

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-09 Thread Andrew Rowland
I second Erik's suggestion. The voiding process seems incomplete to me if it requires me posting a dummy payment in order to have it marked as closed Andrew On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Erik Huelsmann wrote: > Replying to myself: I think that if we can create reports which exclude > reversed

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-09 Thread Erik Huelsmann
Replying to myself: I think that if we can create reports which exclude reversed and reversal transactions, that serves both the accounting audit trail purpose and the optical "I've deleted the transaction" purpose for good overview. Bye, Erik. On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Erik Huelsmann wro

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-08 Thread Erik Huelsmann
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > Hi; > > I would like to propose that we stop allowing transactions to be > reposted or deleted in 1.4, and instead always require transaction > reversal. > > Is there any objection to this? > > Here's my strong support for the proposal. Bye,

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-08 Thread Chris Travers
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Jigme Datse Rasku wrote: > Reposted, as the same transaction?  I'm all for that. Yes, as the same transaction. Best Wishes, Chris Travers -- For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.

Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-08 Thread Jigme Datse Rasku
Reposted, as the same transaction? I'm all for that. On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Chris Travers wrote: > Hi; > > I would like to propose that we stop allowing transactions to be > reposted or deleted in 1.4, and instead always require transaction > reversal. > > Is there any objection to this

[Ledger-smb-users] Proposed change for 1.4

2012-04-08 Thread Chris Travers
Hi; I would like to propose that we stop allowing transactions to be reposted or deleted in 1.4, and instead always require transaction reversal. Is there any objection to this? Best Wishes, Chris Travers -- For Develop