I'm just saying we developers have to find a decision
which doesn't necessarily conform with the majority of feedback on our
mailing lists. Neither we ourselves nor even the users of our mailing
lists might correspond the normal user in a representative way.
Before you claim to make
Christian Stimming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Following this way of thought I would decide for choice #1, leave
as-is for 2.2.0. What do the other developers say?
I like option 3.
The implemented auto-save doesn't behave in the conventional way (with a
separate checkpoint file); it probably
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 10:44:46AM +0200, Christian Stimming wrote:
14:40:57 warlord Hmm, are we going to have a 2.1.6?
16:21:25 andi5 warlord: wrt 2.1.6, if we plan not to revert the
auto-save feature, we might want to have another test version iff
christian wants to extend / improve
Chris Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
Following this way of thought I would decide for choice #1, leave
as-is for 2.2.0. What do the other developers say?
For better or for worse, we've conditioned users (me included) to
expect that they can 1) open GnuCash, 2) make undesired
Speaking strictly as a user of GnuCash, I like the current auto-save as
implemented i.e. save-to-working-file; thanks, Christian!
I've never played around with a GnuCash file, decided I didn't like the
changes and closed without saving (but strangely enough, I do that with other
programs), but
Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 16:56 schrieb Derek Atkins:
Following this way of thought I would decide for choice #1, leave
as-is for 2.2.0. What do the other developers say?
For better or for worse, we've conditioned users (me included) to
expect that they can 1) open GnuCash, 2) make
