Hi,
I'm not the developer of GnuCash, just a user and translator.
>From what is happening on GnuCash, my suggestion is including
gnucash-2.3.x (current is 12), and later update to 2.4.0.
The reason is
1) 2.2.9 haven't been modified for a long time, and looks will never
be modified, so any user report the bug for 2.2.9 may not be fixed and
may be already fixed in 2.3.x.
2) 2.3.12 is string freeze, so it is quite stable, and will reach
stable version 2.4.0 soon. There will be no significant different
between 2.3.x and 2.4.0, so for update from 2.3.x is much easier,
especially for end user.
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> When we started developing for Fedora 13, I included gnucash-2.3.x, as I
> was pretty sure it would be finalized before Fedora 13 was, and I wanted
> to get some more testing on it.
>
> Well, that's not going to happen at this point
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/13/Schedule), so I'm left
> with a couple of options:
>
> 1) Ship F-13 with 2.3.x, push 2.4.0 as an update as soon as it's out
>
> 2) Back F-13 down to 2.2.x (and beta users might need to back out
> their data, ouch), and then ship 2.4.0 as an update.
>
> Which would the GnuCash developers prefer?
>
> Sorry about causing this...
> Bill
> ___
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>
--
Regards
Tao Wang
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
