Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[John Ralls]

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 5:42 PM, Chris Good  wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
>  
> I’ve added a section 
> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Documentation_Update_Instructions#Installing_make
>  
> .
> I assume you do need the full Xcode to build GnuCash on Mac OS X, but only 
> need the command-line tools to build the documentation.
>  

No, the command line tools should be sufficient for building GnuCash too. I 
don't remember exactly when the just-issue-the-command trick started working, 
it may have been 10.8, and I've never tested it on anything but the current 
release. The command-line tools are available as a separate download from 
https://developer.apple.com/downloads  
for most versions of MacOS so that's an alternative if saying "gcc" doesn't pop 
up the offer to install.

I've updated the note on the wiki page to say that, and for good measure the 
"Prerequisites" at https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GTK%2B/OSX/Building 
 as well.

Regards,
John Rals
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

RE: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[Chris Good]

Hi David,

 

I’ve added a section 
http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Documentation_Update_Instructions#Installing_make.

I assume you do need the full Xcode to build GnuCash on Mac OS X, but only need 
the command-line tools to build the documentation.

 

Regards,

 

Chris Good

Mobile 0484 001 392

Phone +61 2  0747

 

From: David T. [mailto:sunfis...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2017 9:30 PM
To: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>; 'John Ralls' <jra...@ceridwen.us>
Cc: 'Frank H. Ellenberger' <frank.h.ellenber...@gmail.com>; 'GnuCash 
Developers' <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>
Subject: RE: Document Update Instructions have been revised

 

Chris, 

 

No. I haven't tried John's suggestion. My current mac is five years old, and I 
had already downloaded the full xcode upgrade when John made the suggestion. 
I'll note that the wiki still instructs mac users to install the full xcode 
suite. If it's no longer true, then the wiki needs correction.

 

David

 

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 13:01, Chris Good

<chris.g...@ozemail.com.au <mailto:chris.g...@ozemail.com.au> > wrote:

From: John Ralls [mailto:jra...@ceridwen.us] 
Sent: Friday, 27 January 2017 1:40 AM
To: sunfis...@yahoo.com <mailto:sunfis...@yahoo.com> 
Cc: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au <mailto:chris.g...@ozemail.com.au> >; 
Frank H. Ellenberger <frank.h.ellenber...@gmail.com 
<mailto:frank.h.ellenber...@gmail.com> >; GnuCash Developers 
<gnucash-devel@gnucash.org <mailto:gnucash-devel@gnucash.org> >
Subject: Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

On Jan 25, 2017, at 11:55 PM, David T. <sunfis...@yahoo.com  
> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:26, John Ralls

<jra...@ceridwen.us  > wrote:

Indeed. But you don't need all of it, just the command-line tools.

Regards,

John Ralls

 

I'm not sure you can get one without first getting the other. At least, I 
haven't been able to. 

Assuming that you don't already have Xcode installed, try running 

  clang foo.cpp

in Terminal. That should pop up a dialog box offering to install them for you.

 Regards,

John Ralls

 

Hi David,

 

Did you manage to install the Xcode command line tools without having to 
install the full Xcode or did you have to use John’s ‘clang foo.cpp’ method?

I think we should document this either way.

 Regards, Chris Good

 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[Frank H. Ellenberger]

David,

Am 07.02.2017 um 17:02 schrieb David T.:
> 
>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Frank H. Ellenberger 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Am 07.02.2017 um 11:29 schrieb David T.:
>>> Chris, No. I haven't tried John's suggestion. My current mac is five
>>> years old, and I had already downloaded the full xcode upgrade when
>>> John made the suggestion. I'll note that the wiki still instructs mac
>>> users to install the full xcode suite. If it's no longer true, then
>>> the wiki needs correction. David
>>
>> Go for it. You are the Mac experts. ;-)
>>
>> ~Frank
> 
> Frank,
> 
> I’m no expert, and I haven’t tested John’s solution, so I don’t know whether 
> it’s true.
> 
> David

But you are more experienced than me with Apple ][ decades ago. ;-)

I think in such a case it is sufficient to add a reliable source like
http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/2017-January/040249.html

Frank
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[David T. via gnucash-devel]

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Frank H. Ellenberger 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> Am 07.02.2017 um 11:29 schrieb David T.:
>> Chris, No. I haven't tried John's suggestion. My current mac is five
>> years old, and I had already downloaded the full xcode upgrade when
>> John made the suggestion. I'll note that the wiki still instructs mac
>> users to install the full xcode suite. If it's no longer true, then
>> the wiki needs correction. David
> 
> Go for it. You are the Mac experts. ;-)
> 
> ~Frank

Frank,

I’m no expert, and I haven’t tested John’s solution, so I don’t know whether 
it’s true.

David
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[Frank H. Ellenberger]

Hi David,

Am 07.02.2017 um 11:29 schrieb David T.:
> Chris, No. I haven't tried John's suggestion. My current mac is five
> years old, and I had already downloaded the full xcode upgrade when
> John made the suggestion. I'll note that the wiki still instructs mac
> users to install the full xcode suite. If it's no longer true, then
> the wiki needs correction. David

Go for it. You are the Mac experts. ;-)

~Frank
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

RE: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[David T. via gnucash-devel]

Chris, 
No. I haven't tried John's suggestion. My current mac is five years old, and I 
had already downloaded the full xcode upgrade when John made the suggestion. 
I'll note that the wiki still instructs mac users to install the full xcode 
suite. If it's no longer true, then the wiki needs correction.
David
 
 
  On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 13:01, Chris Good<chris.g...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:   
From: John Ralls [mailto:jra...@ceridwen.us] 
Sent: Friday, 27 January 2017 1:40 AM
To: sunfis...@yahoo.com
Cc: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>; Frank H. Ellenberger 
<frank.h.ellenber...@gmail.com>; GnuCash Developers <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>
Subject: Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

  

  


On Jan 25, 2017, at 11:55 PM, David T. <sunfis...@yahoo.com> wrote:

  

  

  


On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:26, John Ralls

<jra...@ceridwen.us> wrote:

  

Indeed. But you don't need all of it, just the command-line tools.

  

Regards,

John Ralls

  

  

  

I'm not sure you can get one without first getting the other. At least, I 
haven't been able to. 



Assuming that you don't already have Xcode installed, try running 

  clang foo.cpp

in Terminal. That should pop up a dialog box offering to install them for you.

  

Regards,

John Ralls

  

Hi David,

  

Did you manage to install the Xcode command line tools without having to 
install the full Xcode or did you have to use John’s ‘clang foo.cpp’ method?

I think we should document this either way.

  

Regards, Chris Good

  
  
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

RE: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[Chris Good]

From: John Ralls [mailto:jra...@ceridwen.us] 
Sent: Friday, 27 January 2017 1:40 AM
To: sunfis...@yahoo.com
Cc: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>; Frank H. Ellenberger
<frank.h.ellenber...@gmail.com>; GnuCash Developers
<gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>
Subject: Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

 

 

On Jan 25, 2017, at 11:55 PM, David T. <sunfis...@yahoo.com
<mailto:sunfis...@yahoo.com> > wrote:

 

 

 

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:26, John Ralls

<jra...@ceridwen.us <mailto:jra...@ceridwen.us> > wrote:

 

Indeed. But you don't need all of it, just the command-line tools.

 

Regards,

John Ralls

 

 

 

I'm not sure you can get one without first getting the other. At least, I
haven't been able to. 

Assuming that you don't already have Xcode installed, try running 

  clang foo.cpp

in Terminal. That should pop up a dialog box offering to install them for
you.

 

Regards,

John Ralls

 

Hi David,

 

Did you manage to install the Xcode command line tools without having to
install the full Xcode or did you have to use John's 'clang foo.cpp' method?

I think we should document this either way.

 

Regards, Chris Good

 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[John Ralls]

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 11:55 PM, David T.  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:26, John Ralls
>  wrote:
> 
> Indeed. But you don't need all of it, just the command-line tools.
> 
> Regards,
> John Ralls
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you can get one without first getting the other. At least, I 
> haven't been able to. 
Assuming that you don't already have Xcode installed, try running 
  clang foo.cpp
in Terminal. That should pop up a dialog box offering to install them for you.

Regards,
John Ralls

___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[David T. via gnucash-devel]

 
 
  On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:26, John Ralls wrote:
Indeed. But you don't need all of it, just the command-line tools.
Regards,John Ralls


I'm not sure you can get one without first getting the other. At least, I 
haven't been able to.   
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[John Ralls]

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 6:53 PM, David T.  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 6:57 AM, John Ralls > > wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Chris Good >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> David,
>>> 
>>> I don't remember seeing a response from you about if Mac OSX has 'make' by 
>>> default. Did I miss something? I don't want to hassle you - I see you have 
>>> been quite busy :-).
>> 
>> Chris,
>> 
>> Translation isn't the same between the program and documentation: Only the 
>> Italian documentation translations (i.e. help and the guide) use po files. 
>> The other translations are rewrites of the documentation in their respective 
>> languages.
>> 
>> MacOS does provide make, but only if you install Xcode or the Xcode 
>> "command-line tools". If the latter aren't installed trying to use any of 
>> the tools, including make, will result in a dialog box offering to install 
>> them for you.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> John Ralls
>> 
> 
> I will only add to John’s comments to note that Xcode is in my experience not 
> a normal, average Mac user piece of software—and that the latest version 
> weighs in at 4.5Gb, which can be a bear to get if your connection is slow or 
> hinky. 

Indeed. But you don't need all of it, just the command-line tools.

Regards,
John Ralls


___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[John Ralls]

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Frank H. Ellenberger [mailto:frank.h.ellenber...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:frank.h.ellenber...@gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 January 2017 10:32 AM
>> To: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au 
>> <mailto:chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>>; 'David T.'
>> <sunfis...@yahoo.com <mailto:sunfis...@yahoo.com>>
>> Cc: 'GnuCash Developers' <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org 
>> <mailto:gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>>
>> Subject: Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:33 schrieb Chris Good:
>>> Developers are less likely to be confused by jumping around the wiki than
>> potential documenters.
>> 
>> But from my POV the weakest affected group are the translators as they are
>> usually no native english speakers.
>> 
>> Should we really move it to Translation and link the other pages? ;-)
>> 
>> Yes, currently Build_System is a stub - more or less a reminder "we could
>> explain it here in detail and link the other places":
>> * Building* (Techies),
>> * Document* (Docu writers, mostly native speakers) and
>> * Translation (foreign writers)
>> 
>> Regards
>> Frank
> 
> Hi Frank,
> 
> It seems to me implementing a translation can, if done properly, require more 
> technical skill than documenting, but if you wish to move it to Translation 
> and link the other pages, that's OK by me.
> It would be good if it is made really clear that it applies to both gnucash 
> and gnucash-docs repos.
> 
> David,
> 
> I don't remember seeing a response from you about if Mac OSX has 'make' by 
> default. Did I miss something? I don't want to hassle you - I see you have 
> been quite busy :-).

Chris,

Translation isn't the same between the program and documentation: Only the 
Italian documentation translations (i.e. help and the guide) use po files. The 
other translations are rewrites of the documentation in their respective 
languages.

MacOS does provide make, but only if you install Xcode or the Xcode 
"command-line tools". If the latter aren't installed trying to use any of the 
tools, including make, will result in a dialog box offering to install them for 
you.

Regards,
John Ralls



___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

RE: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[Chris Good]

> -Original Message-
> From: Frank H. Ellenberger [mailto:frank.h.ellenber...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 January 2017 10:32 AM
> To: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>; 'David T.'
> <sunfis...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: 'GnuCash Developers' <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>
> Subject: Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised
>
> Hi,
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:33 schrieb Chris Good:
> > Developers are less likely to be confused by jumping around the wiki than
> potential documenters.
>
> But from my POV the weakest affected group are the translators as they are
> usually no native english speakers.
>
> Should we really move it to Translation and link the other pages? ;-)
>
> Yes, currently Build_System is a stub - more or less a reminder "we could
> explain it here in detail and link the other places":
> * Building* (Techies),
> * Document* (Docu writers, mostly native speakers) and
> * Translation (foreign writers)
>
> Regards
> Frank

Hi Frank,

It seems to me implementing a translation can, if done properly, require more 
technical skill than documenting, but if you wish to move it to Translation 
and link the other pages, that's OK by me.
It would be good if it is made really clear that it applies to both gnucash 
and gnucash-docs repos.

David,

I don't remember seeing a response from you about if Mac OSX has 'make' by 
default. Did I miss something? I don't want to hassle you - I see you have 
been quite busy :-).

Regards, Chris Good


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[Frank H. Ellenberger]

Hi,

Am 23.01.2017 um 23:33 schrieb Chris Good:
> Developers are less likely to be confused by jumping around the wiki than 
> potential documenters.

But from my POV the weakest affected group are the translators as they
are usually no native english speakers.

Should we really move it to Translation and link the other pages? ;-)

Yes, currently Build_System is a stub - more or less a reminder "we
could explain it here in detail and link the other places":
* Building* (Techies),
* Document* (Docu writers, mostly native speakers) and
* Translation (foreign writers)

Regards
Frank
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

RE: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[Chris Good]

> -Original Message-
> From: Frank H. Ellenberger [mailto:frank.h.ellenber...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 23 January 2017 7:09 PM
> To: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>; 'David T.'
> <sunfis...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: 'GnuCash Developers' <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>
> Subject: Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> just a few ideas:
> I found by accident the 10 years old
> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Concept_Guide_draft/Overview ff., which is an
> example for using subpages in a template
> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Template:Cgtoc .
> 
> Don't confuse it with the more recent
> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Concept_Guide which is more a todo list and
> ancestor of the Document Update Instructions
> 
> Recently I was asking myself and Gert, if we should move the nice written
> sections about #The_Make_Utility #Step_3_Generate_configure_Script
> #Step_4_Make_a_Build_Directory_Structure_and_the_Makefiles
> in the basic existing page http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Build_System
> or a new page Autotools and linking it from Building_Gnucash and
> Translation, too.
> That would have the benefit there would be only one page to maintain
> almost everything about the autotools components. OTOH some users could
> be distracted by the jumping between the pages.
> 
> Your opinion?
> 
> I understand that the pull request is the adequate way for a longtime
> contributor on the mailing list like  you, David. But it would be too much
> overhead to create an github account, a ssh key, ... to send a patch for a 
> typo
> by a random reader.
> 
> Regards
> Frank
> 
> Am 22.01.2017 um 01:35 schrieb Chris Good:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: David T. [mailto:sunfis...@yahoo.com]
> >> Sent: Saturday, 21 January 2017 6:38 PM
> >> To: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>
> >> Cc: GnuCash Developers <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised
> >>
> >> Chris, Geert,
> >>
> >> I have to admit that I have put off reading through the changes that
> >> you’ve collectively put in on this wiki page, in part because I am
> >> *that* contributor— you know, the one who barely understands what he
> >> is doing, and is wary of changing the way he does something for fear
> >> that it will break and never work again.
> >>
> >> I have begun to work through this page one more time, and I will no
> >> doubt have changes and suggestions later on. I will refer to my
> >> sentence above, however, and note that my editorial inclinations are
> >> limited by my limited understanding of the technologies and
> >> expectations for this process generally.
> >>
> >> I have a few top level comments:
> >>
> >> A - This page has gotten quite large. Should it be broken into smaller
> pieces?
> >>
> >> B - I would like to see this page separate out the different aspects
> >> of the process more cleanly. Currently, it seems that the set up of
> >> the technologies, the application of the technologies, and the
> >> practices we use are all intermingled. This makes it harder to focus
> >> on one aspect. For example, Steps 2-5 should be separated out into a
> >> separate page on setting up Git for use with documentation.
> >>
> >> C - I think the Preface should outline as simply as possible the
> >> overall process, which I understand to be:
> >>
> >> 1) Contributors propose changes using Bugzilla.
> >> 2) Contributors use a VCS (git), to make these changes locally.
> >> 3) Changes are validated locally.
> >> 4) Contributors submit these changes for approval.
> >> 5) Changes are approved and incorporated into the doc set.
> >>
> >> This overview could then be used to structure the remaining sections.
> >>
> >> I think that the information that currently resides in the Preface is
> >> useful, however, and I’d like to see it moved into other areas as
> appropriate.
> >>
> >> D - Upon initial examination, I see that all reference to how it used
> >> to be done (i.e., the individual xslt and xmllint commands) has been
> >> removed from the page. While I understand that you two believe that
> >> this is the right way to move forward, it leaves me in a quandary. I
> >> already have a local copy, and I know that I can issue some commands
> >> to check and compile my local copy, but I always refer back to the
> >> wiki for the exact commands, which yo

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[David T. via gnucash-devel]

Hi Frank,

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Frank H. Ellenberger 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> just a few ideas:
> I found by accident the 10 years old
> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Concept_Guide_draft/Overview ff., which is
> an example for using subpages in a template
> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Template:Cgtoc .
> 

Wow. I think that set of pages should probably just go away? The Concept Guide 
has moved well beyond these drafts.


> Don't confuse it with the more recent
> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Concept_Guide which is more a todo list and
> ancestor of the Document Update Instructions

The to do list is also dated, but might still be of use. I don’t know whether 
it should be updated or scrapped.

> 
> Recently I was asking myself and Gert, if we should move the nice
> written sections about
> #The_Make_Utility
> #Step_3_Generate_configure_Script
> #Step_4_Make_a_Build_Directory_Structure_and_the_Makefiles
> in the basic existing page http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Build_System
> or a new page Autotools and linking it from Building_Gnucash and
> Translation, too.
> That would have the benefit there would be only one page to maintain
> almost everything about the autotools components. OTOH some users could
> be distracted by the jumping between the pages.
> 
> Your opinion?

The Build System page is too technically-focused and too sparse for my limited 
abilities, and in the context of the docs process, it won’t be of help to the 
people who want only to update the docs (that’s me). 

> 
> I understand that the pull request is the adequate way for a longtime
> contributor on the mailing list like  you, David. But it would be too
> much overhead to create an github account, a ssh key, ... to send a
> patch for a typo by a random reader.

First, setting up the github account was pretty simple (even for me). 

Second, there is simply no way that a “random reader” is EVER going to make a 
change to the documentation. There is a HUGE jump from typing a Word document 
or an email to using a version control system to edit and manage XML files from 
a remote repository. I know, because I have struggled long and hard to 
understand the little of this all that I do. As I said earlier, as a 
non-programmer, I can say that the ONLY way I’ve been able to contribute 
consistently has been through the git pull process.

David

> 
> Regards
> Frank

___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[Frank H. Ellenberger]

Hi all,

just a few ideas:
I found by accident the 10 years old
http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Concept_Guide_draft/Overview ff., which is
an example for using subpages in a template
http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Template:Cgtoc .

Don't confuse it with the more recent
http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Concept_Guide which is more a todo list and
ancestor of the Document Update Instructions

Recently I was asking myself and Gert, if we should move the nice
written sections about
#The_Make_Utility
#Step_3_Generate_configure_Script
#Step_4_Make_a_Build_Directory_Structure_and_the_Makefiles
in the basic existing page http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Build_System
or a new page Autotools and linking it from Building_Gnucash and
Translation, too.
That would have the benefit there would be only one page to maintain
almost everything about the autotools components. OTOH some users could
be distracted by the jumping between the pages.

Your opinion?

I understand that the pull request is the adequate way for a longtime
contributor on the mailing list like  you, David. But it would be too
much overhead to create an github account, a ssh key, ... to send a
patch for a typo by a random reader.

Regards
Frank

Am 22.01.2017 um 01:35 schrieb Chris Good:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David T. [mailto:sunfis...@yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, 21 January 2017 6:38 PM
>> To: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>
>> Cc: GnuCash Developers <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>
>> Subject: Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised
>>
>> Chris, Geert,
>>
>> I have to admit that I have put off reading through the changes that you’ve
>> collectively put in on this wiki page, in part because I am *that* 
>> contributor—
>> you know, the one who barely understands what he is doing, and is wary of
>> changing the way he does something for fear that it will break and never
>> work again.
>>
>> I have begun to work through this page one more time, and I will no doubt
>> have changes and suggestions later on. I will refer to my sentence above,
>> however, and note that my editorial inclinations are limited by my limited
>> understanding of the technologies and expectations for this process
>> generally.
>>
>> I have a few top level comments:
>>
>> A - This page has gotten quite large. Should it be broken into smaller 
>> pieces?
>>
>> B - I would like to see this page separate out the different aspects of the
>> process more cleanly. Currently, it seems that the set up of the 
>> technologies,
>> the application of the technologies, and the practices we use are all
>> intermingled. This makes it harder to focus on one aspect. For example,
>> Steps 2-5 should be separated out into a separate page on setting up Git for
>> use with documentation.
>>
>> C - I think the Preface should outline as simply as possible the overall 
>> process,
>> which I understand to be:
>>
>> 1) Contributors propose changes using Bugzilla.
>> 2) Contributors use a VCS (git), to make these changes locally.
>> 3) Changes are validated locally.
>> 4) Contributors submit these changes for approval.
>> 5) Changes are approved and incorporated into the doc set.
>>
>> This overview could then be used to structure the remaining sections.
>>
>> I think that the information that currently resides in the Preface is useful,
>> however, and I’d like to see it moved into other areas as appropriate.
>>
>> D - Upon initial examination, I see that all reference to how it used to be
>> done (i.e., the individual xslt and xmllint commands) has been removed from
>> the page. While I understand that you two believe that this is the right way 
>> to
>> move forward, it leaves me in a quandary. I already have a local copy, and I
>> know that I can issue some commands to check and compile my local copy,
>> but I always refer back to the wiki for the exact commands, which you’ve
>> removed. I would prefer that some inclusion of these other methods be
>> mentioned in some way.
>>
>> I began to make some of these changes myself, but given my limited abilities
>> with these processes, I thought it better to discuss the changes here before
>> unilaterally (and ill-informedly) making the changes directly.
>>
>> David
>>
>>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've finished updating the wiki Document Update Instructions [1] to
>>> include instructions for using 'make' rather than xmllint and xsltproc
>> directly.
>>>
>>> 

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[David T. via gnucash-devel]

See below…

> On Jan 22, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> 
> From: David T. [mailto:sunfis...@yahoo.com <mailto:sunfis...@yahoo.com>] 
> Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2017 5:30 AM
> To: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au <mailto:chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>>
> Cc: Geert Janssens <geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be 
> <mailto:geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be>>; GnuCash Developers 
> <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org <mailto:gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>>
> Subject: Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised
> 
> It seems to me that this instruction set is meant for new contributors to the 
> documentation. Personally, I think such a set of instructions should focus 
> primarily on ONE method for contributing, with passing mention of other 
> possibilities. As I understand it, the git way is the currently-preferred 
> method for offering contributions, and IMHO, this wiki page should focus 
> primarily on that. Passing mention of other methods can be included for those 
> who already have the understanding of the technologies. Thus, the discussions 
> about formatting a patch and attaching it to the bug could be mentioned in 
> passing, while the git pull request method could be brought forward and 
> promoted.
>  
> In the same spirit of giving simpler advice to new contributors, I would 
> prefer that the git process described here refer to the other Git page 
> (wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Git <http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Git>), which I think 
> should be cleaned up by someone who knows more about git than I do. 
>  
> FWIW, I think the other Git page should focus on one preferred git modality, 
> said modality being the one where contributors fork the main GC repository on 
> github.com <http://github.com/>, push their changes to that fork, and then 
> issue pull requests to the main repo. Again, other options could be mentioned 
> in passing, but the focus should be on the GnuCash Preferred Method.
>  
> As for the whole “testing the help on Linux” section, as a Mac user, I have 
> NEVER attempted any of this, and if it is an important part of the 
> documentation creation process, then I haven’t  done it correctly ever. Since 
> I have been successfully adding to the documentation for a while now, I can 
> assume that this section is, in fact, superfluous to the actual documentation 
> update process. I would propose moving it into some other area of the wiki, 
> perhaps with an advanced Linux developer’s page, where true geeks (I say this 
> with admiration) can plumb the depths of providing this added Linux 
> functionality. 
>  
> David 
>  
> Hi David,
>  
> You seem to be a little confused between git and github. Both the patch and 
> pull request methods use git on your PC.
> Both the patch and pull request methods get the local repo from github. Only 
> the pull request method uses github for the submitting of the modification 
> request. A github pull request is the method the developers currently prefer 
> for offering contributions.

As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I am not an expert when it comes 
to using Git. John, Geert, and others on the list can verify my ability to take 
even the most basic aspect of Git and screw it up. That is also why I suggest 
focusing on one GnuCash Preferred Method; I am proof positive that you can’t 
make it simple enough. 


>  
> Yes, the Documentation Update Instructions are aimed at new contributors. For 
> non-technical people, submitting a patch is the easiest way, so that is 
> historically the primary focus of this page. I think this is so as not to 
> confuse them by making them jump to another page.

As the epitome of a non-technical person, I am not sure I agree with your 
assesment of patches being easier. My experience of the patch process was 
painful and ugly, and I do not believe I ever got a “patch” submitted without 
major handholding from others on the list. In contrast, I have been able in 
recent months to actually edit the documentation (in some substantial ways, on 
occasion), submit the changes, and get them integrated into the distributed 
document set numerous times. In my experience, pull requests are easier...

>  
> Maybe others will disagree but I don’t think changing the primary focus of 
> this page from patches to pull requests is really the best use of your time. 
> :-)
>  
> It seems people are skipping the reference to 
> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Git_For_Newbies 
> <http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Git_For_Newbies> from 
> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Documentation_Update_Instructions#Step_2_Git_Clone
>  
> <http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Documentation_Update_Instructions#Step_2_Git_Clone>.
>  Do you think it should be made

RE: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[Chris Good]

> -Original Message-
> From: David T. [mailto:sunfis...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 21 January 2017 6:38 PM
> To: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>
> Cc: GnuCash Developers <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>
> Subject: Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised
> 
> Chris, Geert,
> 
> I have to admit that I have put off reading through the changes that you’ve
> collectively put in on this wiki page, in part because I am *that* 
> contributor—
> you know, the one who barely understands what he is doing, and is wary of
> changing the way he does something for fear that it will break and never
> work again.
> 
> I have begun to work through this page one more time, and I will no doubt
> have changes and suggestions later on. I will refer to my sentence above,
> however, and note that my editorial inclinations are limited by my limited
> understanding of the technologies and expectations for this process
> generally.
> 
> I have a few top level comments:
> 
> A - This page has gotten quite large. Should it be broken into smaller pieces?
> 
> B - I would like to see this page separate out the different aspects of the
> process more cleanly. Currently, it seems that the set up of the technologies,
> the application of the technologies, and the practices we use are all
> intermingled. This makes it harder to focus on one aspect. For example,
> Steps 2-5 should be separated out into a separate page on setting up Git for
> use with documentation.
> 
> C - I think the Preface should outline as simply as possible the overall 
> process,
> which I understand to be:
> 
> 1) Contributors propose changes using Bugzilla.
> 2) Contributors use a VCS (git), to make these changes locally.
> 3) Changes are validated locally.
> 4) Contributors submit these changes for approval.
> 5) Changes are approved and incorporated into the doc set.
> 
> This overview could then be used to structure the remaining sections.
> 
> I think that the information that currently resides in the Preface is useful,
> however, and I’d like to see it moved into other areas as appropriate.
> 
> D - Upon initial examination, I see that all reference to how it used to be
> done (i.e., the individual xslt and xmllint commands) has been removed from
> the page. While I understand that you two believe that this is the right way 
> to
> move forward, it leaves me in a quandary. I already have a local copy, and I
> know that I can issue some commands to check and compile my local copy,
> but I always refer back to the wiki for the exact commands, which you’ve
> removed. I would prefer that some inclusion of these other methods be
> mentioned in some way.
> 
> I began to make some of these changes myself, but given my limited abilities
> with these processes, I thought it better to discuss the changes here before
> unilaterally (and ill-informedly) making the changes directly.
> 
> David
> 
> > On Jan 17, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > I've finished updating the wiki Document Update Instructions [1] to
> > include instructions for using 'make' rather than xmllint and xsltproc
> directly.
> >
> > Thank you very much Geert for all the info.
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Documentation_Update_Instructions
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards, Chris Good

Hi David,

A - IMHO I don't think this page is too large. It is quite easy to navigate 
using the index at the top. It would be annoying to have to jump to multiple 
pages.

B - I agree it could be better structured. I don't think it needs a new page. 
If you're going to put 3.2 to 3.5 into a separate git set up section, it would 
be good if you could include some instructions on how to start a new 
modification (including rebasing) having already set up git and your build 
directory structure previously.

I previously created Git_For_Newbies with the idea that new users should really 
be using that for all the git stuff (using Pull Requests instead of Patches if 
possible). Git_For_Newbies applies equally to the documentation as to the 
programs. I haven't gotten around to fixing Documentation_Update_Instructions 
yet. If you can, Great! :-) It may be that much of Git_For_Newbies needs to be 
brought into Documentation_Update_Instructions but changed to specifically 
refer to the documentation. But that seems like a lot of duplication...

C - Having an additional outline as you suggest may be helpful, although the 
index already gives a 1 page summary - on my new 27" monitor anyway :-). I'm 
not sure I agree with moving the stuff already in the Preface into other areas. 
I think it is useful to get some d

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[David T. via gnucash-devel]

> On Jan 18, 2017, at 8:06 AM, Chris Good  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> * Lastly you describe how to format a patch. While this is certainly one
> of the
>> accepted methods, it may be interesting to document how to make a pull
>> request as well.
>> 
>> That's it. Again, thanks for all the effort you spent on this so far!
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Geert
> 

It seems to me that this instruction set is meant for new contributors to the 
documentation. Personally, I think such a set of instructions should focus 
primarily on ONE method for contributing, with passing mention of other 
possibilities. As I understand it, the git way is the currently-preferred 
method for offering contributions, and IMHO, this wiki page should focus 
primarily on that. Passing mention of other methods can be included for those 
who already have the understanding of the technologies. Thus, the discussions 
about formatting a patch and attaching it to the bug could be mentioned in 
passing, while the git pull request method could be brought forward and 
promoted.

In the same spirit of giving simpler advice to new contributors, I would prefer 
that the git process described here refer to the other Git page 
(wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Git ), which I think 
should be cleaned up by someone who knows more about git than I do. 

FWIW, I think the other Git page should focus on one preferred git modality, 
said modality being the one where contributors fork the main GC repository on 
github.com , push their changes to that fork, and then 
issue pull requests to the main repo. Again, other options could be mentioned 
in passing, but the focus should be on the GnuCash Preferred Method.

As for the whole “testing the help on Linux” section, as a Mac user, I have 
NEVER attempted any of this, and if it is an important part of the 
documentation creation process, then I haven’t  done it correctly ever. Since I 
have been successfully adding to the documentation for a while now, I can 
assume that this section is, in fact, superfluous to the actual documentation 
update process. I would propose moving it into some other area of the wiki, 
perhaps with an advanced Linux developer’s page, where true geeks (I say this 
with admiration) can plumb the depths of providing this added Linux 
functionality. 

David

> Hi Geert,
> 
> Thanks for reviewing my work and adding extra suggestions. I really enjoy
> learning more from your insights. I like to know, at least generally, 'why',
> as well as 'how'.
> I totally agree your suggestions would be helpful to new documenters. I'm a
> little concerned that the bulk of this page could be a little off-putting.
> However, I think it is better to have too much info than not enough.
> I would like to point out that your suggestions are mostly changes to things
> other people wrote. :-)
> 
> Originally, I myself started to try to modify the documentation on Windows
> but soon thought it was not possible (or at least too difficult), and
> changed to Linux.
> People who are not familiar with Linux and virtual machines would probably
> like more guidance on this.
> I have since found that xmllint.exe & xsltproc.exe are in
> c:\strawberry\c\bin so that may help. Maybe an msys (or cygwin?) environment
> is not needed. I know practically nothing about msys or cygwin. If anyone
> else can add anything about updating the documentation on Windows or Mac,
> I'd like to hear it.
> 
> Re the various translations:
> I only speak 1 language, English (Australian) fluently, and some will argue
> about that, so it has never really mattered to me, but...
> Is it true that the non-English versions of the documentation are
> translations of the English documentation?
> If so, is this 'policy' or just how it has worked out?
> I could imaging that different translations could have totally unique
> sections to cater for localisations.
> 
> I agree it should be made clearer that it is only necessary to build and
> install a development version of GnuCash (programs) if one needs to test
> context help for features that are only in a more recent version than
> already installed. That section has always been confusing to me.
> 
> 'Step 2 Git Clone' links to info about using pull requests instead of
> patches.
> I'll add similar references to the start of ' Step 15 Prepare your Patch'.
> 
> Regards, Chris Good
> ___
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[David T. via gnucash-devel]

Chris, Geert,

I have to admit that I have put off reading through the changes that you’ve 
collectively put in on this wiki page, in part because I am *that* 
contributor—you know, the one who barely understands what he is doing, and is 
wary of changing the way he does something for fear that it will break and 
never work again.

I have begun to work through this page one more time, and I will no doubt have 
changes and suggestions later on. I will refer to my sentence above, however, 
and note that my editorial inclinations are limited by my limited understanding 
of the technologies and expectations for this process generally.

I have a few top level comments: 

A - This page has gotten quite large. Should it be broken into smaller pieces?

B - I would like to see this page separate out the different aspects of the 
process more cleanly. Currently, it seems that the set up of the technologies, 
the application of the technologies, and the practices we use are all 
intermingled. This makes it harder to focus on one aspect. For example, Steps 
2-5 should be separated out into a separate page on setting up Git for use with 
documentation.

C - I think the Preface should outline as simply as possible the overall 
process, which I understand to be:

1) Contributors propose changes using Bugzilla.
2) Contributors use a VCS (git), to make these changes locally.
3) Changes are validated locally.
4) Contributors submit these changes for approval.
5) Changes are approved and incorporated into the doc set.

This overview could then be used to structure the remaining sections. 

I think that the information that currently resides in the Preface is useful, 
however, and I’d like to see it moved into other areas as appropriate.

D - Upon initial examination, I see that all reference to how it used to be 
done (i.e., the individual xslt and xmllint commands) has been removed from the 
page. While I understand that you two believe that this is the right way to 
move forward, it leaves me in a quandary. I already have a local copy, and I 
know that I can issue some commands to check and compile my local copy, but I 
always refer back to the wiki for the exact commands, which you’ve removed. I 
would prefer that some inclusion of these other methods be mentioned in some 
way.

I began to make some of these changes myself, but given my limited abilities 
with these processes, I thought it better to discuss the changes here before 
unilaterally (and ill-informedly) making the changes directly.

David

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Chris Good  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> I've finished updating the wiki Document Update Instructions [1] to include
> instructions for using 'make' rather than xmllint and xsltproc directly.
> 
> Thank you very much Geert for all the info.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Documentation_Update_Instructions
> 
> 
> 
> Regards, Chris Good
> 
> 
> 


___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

RE: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[Chris Good]

> -Original Message-
> From: Geert Janssens [mailto:geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2017 10:14 PM
> To: Chris Good <chris.g...@ozemail.com.au>
> Cc: GnuCash Developers <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org>
> Subject: Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised
> 
> Op dinsdag 17 januari 2017 11:16:39 CET schreef Chris Good:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > I've finished updating the wiki Document Update Instructions [1] to
> > include instructions for using 'make' rather than xmllint and xsltproc
> directly.
> >
> > Thank you very much Geert for all the info.
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Documentation_Update_Instructions
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards, Chris Good
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Thanks for improving our documentation on improving our documentation ;)
> 
> Seriously, I appreciate the effort you're spending here.
> 
> I'm proof reading what you have written and below follow some remarks:
> 
> * You are referring to the required use of make, which I like obviously as
I
> suggested that myself. What is not clear in your documentation however is
> how to obtain make and the related tools. On linux this is usually
obtained via
> the package manager. There is usually some kind of package group related
to
> development that installs all the required dependencies in one go. On OS X
I
> don't know how to get it. That's John's expertise although David T may
know
> this by now as well... And on Windows it's probably even more complicated.
> TBH I never tried manually building the gnucash documentation on that
> platform, so I can't give precise instructions. It will likely involve
installing an
> msys environment.
> 
> * Step 5 confuses me:
> "Experienced developers instruct that you should focus first on the
modules
> in either of these two directories (found in the step 1 downloaded files):
> gnucash-docs/help/C or gnucash-docs/guide/C. "
> What do you mean by this ? The "C" directories contain the documentation
in
> English. All other directories contain translations of these in other
languages.
> As I see it there is no need to present this as some kind of mythical
> knowledge only understood by "Experienced developers".
> 
> * The next paragraph confuses me as well. How would opening each file
> reveal errors ? This is not really clear to me.
> 
> * A bit further you suggest to add a pair of comments around your changes
> to help translators. I would propose not to do that as I believe this is
> redundant information. This is what a version management system is used
> for.
> One can use the git history to see what has changed since the last time
one
> has worked on the translation. There are graphical tools like gitk or the
github
> website that help you visualize these changes.
> 
> * "If you are adding or deleting an xml file, for example adding a new
chapter
> or appendix, you also need to update files
[guide|help]/[language]/gnucash-
> {guide|help}.xml and [guide|help]/[language]/Makefile.am. There is no
> need to update Makefile.in as this is generated by running autogen.sh."
> Perhaps here it's best to more explicitly state autogen.sh and
../configure.sh
> should be re-run.
> 
> * There is a section on testing the documentation locally on linux. I have
> slightly modified it, because parts of it were outdated. And I'm
considering
> whether we shouldn't simplify it even more. For now I have stated you can
> run this test with any version of gnucash higher than 2.6.0, with the
> restriction that yelp is installed and working. The text is not too clear
about
> that second part, but that is what the "linux" restriction is actually all
about.
> This does reduce the cases where a full build of a development version of
> gnucash is necessary IMO. It believe this is only necessary when you want
to
> test context help for features that are only in a more recent version than
you
> currently have. But this begs the question whether we really need gnucash
> at all in the other cases. Only yelp suffices as explained at the end of
step
> 11.3. Perhaps we should make that the preferred testing method and only
> propose linux tests in case new context help should be tested. What do you
> think ?
> 
> * Lastly you describe how to format a patch. While this is certainly one
of the
> accepted methods, it may be interesting to document how to make a pull
> request as well.
> 
> That's it. Again, thanks for all the effort you spent on this so far!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Geert

Hi Geert,

Thanks for reviewing my work and adding extra suggestions. I really enjoy
learning more from your insights. I like to kno

Re: Document Update Instructions have been revised

[Geert Janssens]

Op dinsdag 17 januari 2017 11:16:39 CET schreef Chris Good:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> I've finished updating the wiki Document Update Instructions [1] to include
> instructions for using 'make' rather than xmllint and xsltproc directly.
> 
> Thank you very much Geert for all the info.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Documentation_Update_Instructions
> 
> 
> 
> Regards, Chris Good

Chris,

Thanks for improving our documentation on improving our documentation ;)

Seriously, I appreciate the effort you're spending here.

I'm proof reading what you have written and below follow some remarks:

* You are referring to the required use of make, which I like obviously as I 
suggested that myself. What is not clear in your documentation however is how 
to obtain make and the related tools. On linux this is usually obtained via 
the package manager. There is usually some kind of package group related to 
development that installs all the required dependencies in one go. On OS X I 
don't know how to get it. That's John's expertise although David T may know 
this by now as well... And on Windows it's probably even more complicated. TBH 
I never tried manually building the gnucash documentation on that platform, so 
I can't give precise instructions. It will likely involve installing an msys 
environment.

* Step 5 confuses me:
"Experienced developers instruct that you should focus first on the modules in 
either of these two directories (found in the step 1 downloaded files): 
gnucash-docs/help/C or gnucash-docs/guide/C. "
What do you mean by this ? The "C" directories contain the documentation in 
English. All other directories contain translations of these in other 
languages. As I see it there is no need to present this as some kind of 
mythical knowledge only understood by "Experienced developers".

* The next paragraph confuses me as well. How would opening each file reveal 
errors ? This is not really clear to me.

* A bit further you suggest to add a pair of comments around your changes to 
help translators. I would propose not to do that as I believe this is 
redundant information. This is what a version management system is used for. 
One can use the git history to see what has changed since the last time one 
has worked on the translation. There are graphical tools like gitk or the 
github website that help you visualize these changes.

* "If you are adding or deleting an xml file, for example adding a new chapter 
or appendix, you also need to update files [guide|help]/[language]/gnucash-
{guide|help}.xml and [guide|help]/[language]/Makefile.am. There is no need to 
update Makefile.in as this is generated by running autogen.sh."
Perhaps here it's best to more explicitly state autogen.sh and ../configure.sh 
should be re-run.

* There is a section on testing the documentation locally on linux. I have 
slightly modified it, because parts of it were outdated. And I'm considering 
whether we shouldn't simplify it even more. For now I have stated you can run 
this test with any version of gnucash higher than 2.6.0, with the restriction 
that yelp is installed and working. The text is not too clear about that 
second part, but that is what the "linux" restriction is actually all about. 
This does reduce the cases where a full build of a development version of 
gnucash is necessary IMO. It believe this is only necessary when you want to 
test context help for features that are only in a more recent version than you 
currently have. But this begs the question whether we really need gnucash at 
all in the other cases. Only yelp suffices as explained at the end of step 
11.3. Perhaps we should make that the preferred testing method and only 
propose linux tests in case new context help should be tested. What do you 
think ?

* Lastly you describe how to format a patch. While this is certainly one of 
the accepted methods, it may be interesting to document how to make a pull 
request as well.

That's it. Again, thanks for all the effort you spent on this so far!

Regards,

Geert
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel