Am 03.01.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Derek Atkins:
> I see no reason that we can't jump from 2.7.x to 3.0[.0] when we release.
> And since we DID upgrade to GTK3, I think we should do that.
+1
> As for whether to drop the third entry is less important to me, but I
> still think it makes sense to have 3
John Ralls writes:
>> 2. Versioning.
>>
>> We currently use a version scheme gigantic.major.minor[-build]. Like 2.6.19
>> (and an optional -2 if we had to release more than once to get it right).
>> For
>> the 3 levels we really only use two. The 2 in front has been updated when
>> gnucash m
Op vrijdag 29 december 2017 19:12:59 CET schreef Sumit Bhardwaj:
> Geert,
>
> How would this impact the branching? Would we still have master, unstable,
> and maint? And, how would those correspond to the release versions?
>
The branches would remain as they are now.
All backwards incompatible o
Geert,
How would this impact the branching? Would we still have master, unstable,
and maint? And, how would those correspond to the release versions?
Thanks,
Sumit
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
> Op vrijdag 29 december 2017 18:23:57 CET schreef John Ralls:
> > > On De
Op vrijdag 29 december 2017 18:23:57 CET schreef John Ralls:
> > On Dec 29, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Geert Janssens
> > wrote:>
> > Op vrijdag 29 december 2017 10:11:08 CET schreef Alen Siljak:
> >> I'd like to add that, to me, the difference between stable and unstable
> >> version is obvious enough if
> On Dec 29, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Geert Janssens
> wrote:
>
> Op vrijdag 29 december 2017 10:11:08 CET schreef Alen Siljak:
>> I'd like to add that, to me, the difference between stable and unstable
>> version is obvious enough if I see v2.8.0-alpha1, 2.8.0-alpha2,
>> 2.8.0-beta1, 2.8.0-rc1, and
Op vrijdag 29 december 2017 10:11:08 CET schreef Alen Siljak:
> I'd like to add that, to me, the difference between stable and unstable
> version is obvious enough if I see v2.8.0-alpha1, 2.8.0-alpha2,
> 2.8.0-beta1, 2.8.0-rc1, and then 2.8.0. I see no need for separate version
> numbers.
That's a
ot;Geert Janssens"
To: gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
Cc: "Alen Siljak"
Subject: Re: Beyond 2.8 - some design thoughts
I do agree up to some point. I consider the scheme I propose to be
mostly a
simplified form of the semantic versioning. We will use one level less,
becau
Op woensdag 27 december 2017 12:51:32 CET schreef Wm via gnucash-devel:
> On 24/12/2017 16:34, Geert Janssens wrote:
>
> [snips below, hopefully context maintained]
>
> > 1. Use of namespaces.
> >
> > For 2.8 I have been working on converting parts of the CSV importer to
> > C++.
> > And conside
Op maandag 25 december 2017 01:49:41 CET schreef Alen Siljak:
> To me, as an outsider and an occassional tester, Semantic Versioning would
> make much more sense than any other custom versioning system. Simply
> because it is getting common across various software packages and
> libraries. It might
On 24/12/2017 16:34, Geert Janssens wrote:
[snips below, hopefully context maintained]
1. Use of namespaces.
For 2.8 I have been working on converting parts of the CSV importer to C++.
And considering the class structure that is slowly forming there (still in
flux as conversion of additional
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
> While we're working hard to get 2.8 ready for official release, the current
> state of the code keeps reminding me of a few design related topics I would
> like to discuss for the development cycle after 2.8 has been released.
>
> We're st
> On Dec 25, 2017, at 9:24 AM, Geert Janssens
> wrote:
>
> Op maandag 25 december 2017 17:34:22 CET schreef Christian Stimming:
>> As for the namespace aliases such as "namespace gia =
>> gnc::import::aqbanking", those must not appear in header files, but may
>> appear in cpp files. However, I
Op maandag 25 december 2017 17:34:22 CET schreef Christian Stimming:
> Hi Geert,
>
> just two bits of thoughts from my side:
>
> Am Sonntag, 24. Dezember 2017, 17:34:51 schrieb Geert Janssens:
> > 1. Use of namespaces.
> > ... nested namespaces ...
>
> Yes, absolutely. I have quite some experien
Op maandag 25 december 2017 00:34:39 CET schreef John Ralls:
> > On Dec 24, 2017, at 8:34 AM, Geert Janssens
> > wrote:
> >
> > 2. Versioning.
> >
> > We currently use a version scheme gigantic.major.minor[-build]. Like
> > 2.6.19
> > (and an optional -2 if we had to release more than once to ge
Hi Geert,
just two bits of thoughts from my side:
Am Sonntag, 24. Dezember 2017, 17:34:51 schrieb Geert Janssens:
> 1. Use of namespaces.
> ... nested namespaces ...
Yes, absolutely. I have quite some experience with C++ libraries and
applications and I made very positive experience with this s
To me, as an outsider and an occassional tester, Semantic Versioning
would make much more sense than any other custom versioning system.
Simply because it is getting common across various software packages
and libraries. It might work for the GUI application as well, when
referring t
> On Dec 24, 2017, at 8:34 AM, Geert Janssens
> wrote:
>
> While we're working hard to get 2.8 ready for official release, the current
> state of the code keeps reminding me of a few design related topics I would
> like to discuss for the development cycle after 2.8 has been released.
>
> W
While we're working hard to get 2.8 ready for official release, the current
state of the code keeps reminding me of a few design related topics I would
like to discuss for the development cycle after 2.8 has been released.
We're still a few months away from that point, but it's a quiet Christmas
19 matches
Mail list logo
