Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

> On 10. Jun 2018, at 13:41, Christian Stimming wrote: > > Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2018, 17:28:27 schrieb John Ralls: >>> there is already a private fork, just as everyone else >>> around here is free to privately fork anything that he/she wants. >>>

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2018, 17:28:27 schrieb John Ralls: > > there is already a private fork, just as everyone else > > around here is free to privately fork anything that he/she wants. > > https://github.com/cstim/gnucash/tree/branch-2.6 > > BTW, there's already a 2.6.21 because the MySQL backend

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

+1 on all fronts. Thank you Adrien. > On Jun 3, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Adrien Monteleone > wrote: > > Folks, > > Perhaps my comments are not wanted, or out of place, but as an active user, > someone who contributes a bit of assistance on the mailing list, and just > someone who in general helps

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Folks, Perhaps my comments are not wanted, or out of place, but as an active user, someone who contributes a bit of assistance on the mailing list, and just someone who in general helps people less knowledgable with software selections and support, I have to ask, “Christian, did you consider

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

> On Jun 2, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Christian Stimming wrote: > > Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2018, 08:16:35 schrieb John Ralls: But why do we keep a "gnucash" repo at all and not only everyone's personal repository? Of course there is some sort of project belonging. My proposal is

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2018, 08:16:35 schrieb John Ralls: > >> But why do we keep a "gnucash" repo at all and not only everyone's > >> personal > >> repository? Of course there is some sort of project belonging. My > >> proposal > >> is to still keep the 2.6 branch a little bit more alive, and one or

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

> On Jun 2, 2018, at 1:10 AM, Geert Janssens wrote: > > Op woensdag 30 mei 2018 22:31:03 CEST schreef Christian Stimming: >> Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018, 06:56:44 schrieb John Ralls: On May 29, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Geert Janssens wrote: or at best on a branch that clearly

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Op woensdag 30 mei 2018 22:31:03 CEST schreef Christian Stimming: > Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018, 06:56:44 schrieb John Ralls: > > > On May 29, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Geert Janssens > > > wrote: > > > > > > or at best on a branch that clearly shows it's not maintained by the > > > currently active

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018, 06:56:44 schrieb John Ralls: > > On May 29, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Geert Janssens > > wrote: > > > > or at best on a branch that clearly shows it's not maintained by the > > currently active gnucash community (like a cstim-2.6 branch or something > > similar). > > Git !=

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

> On May 29, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Geert Janssens > wrote: > > or at best on a branch that clearly shows it's not maintained by the > currently > active gnucash community (like a cstim-2.6 branch or something similar). > Git != SVN. There is *no reason* for personal branches in a git

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Hi Christian, John makes some valid points especially about the maintenance burden. However on the other hand I have been musing supporting multiple stable versions side by side. So in a way I do appreciate your proposal to maintain a 2.6 version. Given the limited available time of the

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

> On May 27, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Christian Stimming > wrote: > > Dear John, > > I did notice that the 2.6 branch was deleted (meaning: "maint" is now the 3.x > branch), but I didn't understand the reasons and didn't see any discussion of > this decision. I have some

[GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Dear John, I did notice that the 2.6 branch was deleted (meaning: "maint" is now the 3.x branch), but I didn't understand the reasons and didn't see any discussion of this decision. I have some requirements which I can meet most easily by just continuing the 2.6 version of gnucash, but this in