[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas) writes:
> > I still believe that you should NOT be copying customers (or vendors,
> > or employees) across book closings, or if you do it should be an exact
> > copy, not a 'gemini' copy.
>
> Its an exact copy, only the guid's are different. The guid's are
> different because every object must have a unique guid; it doesn't
> make sense to me to have two distinct objects with the same guid.
But that's mu point, they are not distinct objects...
> > Similarly with the billterms and taxtables
> > you dont need to copy them because the parent/child code is already
> > doing the historical "copy and save" for you.
>
> Does this mean that I should prune away the children on closing books?
If there are no references to the object in the book, then yes, you
can prune them.
> --linas
-derek
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
