On Jun 7, 2005, at 9:23 PM, R Hannes Beinert wrote:
My current install of GnuCash (fink) on a Mac (G3/384MB/Tiger) is
taking about
an hour (!) to completely start up. Top shows that guile-1.6 is
essentially
taking most of the CPU for about 38 minutes (processor time) before
the splash
fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hannes Beinert wrote:
| Suggestions welcome. G5's welcome, too. :-)
| TIA.
Bug in dlsym, fixed in Mac OS X 10.4.2 coming soon.
Peter
- --
Peter O'Gorman - http://www.pogma.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin)
iQCVAw
I've been lurking in this conversation as its very muchout of my world,
though very interesting... my .02 below...
Dan Widyono wrote:
I <>
This does not match what I hear from regular users (non-computer-savvy).
They follow whatever their distro vendor provides for the most part. "The
dis
--- Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting "Kevin T. Broderick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > (With that said, having things start up quickly is nice, too, and I'd
> > obviously be interested in other ideas to speed up the process.)
>
> Fix gnucash's half-done modularization effort.
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:10 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
>Something like gnc_tree_view_new() or
> gnc_tree_view_new_with_model(), would be convenient. It seems almost
> conventional in gtk.
That's true in cases where the the model (or whatever) is optional. At
the moment I think the GncTree
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 15:37 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> David,
> I've had a pretty good look at gnc-tree-view.{ch} and I think
> it's fantastic. This is exactly what all the other tree views were
> begging for. And the integration with gconf is great. I think it's
> going to make for
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 03:37:22PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> David,
> I've had a pretty good look at gnc-tree-view.{ch} and I think
> it's fantastic. This is exactly what all the other tree views were
> begging for. And the integration with gconf is great. I think it's
> going to m
David,
I've had a pretty good look at gnc-tree-view.{ch} and I think
it's fantastic. This is exactly what all the other tree views were
begging for. And the integration with gconf is great. I think it's
going to make for nice behavior of treeviews and much cleaner code,
too.
Min
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 05:49:19PM +0200, Christian Stimming wrote:
> Chris Shoemaker schrieb:
> >>I agree, but I think it's bad right now that devs aren't concerned
> >>about getting g2 out the door. At least it feels to me that you don't
> >>care about getting g2 released. Please tell me I'm wr
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:39:08AM -0400, Josh Sled wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 11:18 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
>
> > If it only works as well as 1.x, why are users going to be any more
> > pleased with g2 than 1.x? Do you think the average user knows and
> > cares what libraries their acc
Chris Shoemaker wrote:
<...>
See, I don't think it's of marginal benefit to get g2 into the hands
of the users even if it only works as well as 1.8. Indeed, currently
the g2 port does NOT work as well as 1.8! I think just getting it up
to 1.8's level is sufficient to make users happy and extend
Chris Shoemaker schrieb:
I agree, but I think it's bad right now that devs aren't concerned
about getting g2 out the door. At least it feels to me that you don't
care about getting g2 released. Please tell me I'm wrong! But it
sounds like you'd rather rebuild working code now than wait until
a
> If it only works as well as 1.x, why are users going to be any more
> pleased with g2 than 1.x? Do you think the average user knows and
> cares what libraries their acct package uses?
No, but they care what libraries are included with their plug-and-play
distribution (where said distro's mainta
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 11:18 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> If it only works as well as 1.x, why are users going to be any more
> pleased with g2 than 1.x? Do you think the average user knows and
> cares what libraries their acct package uses?
No, but they do care that they can package-managemen
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:22:53AM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Josh Sled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Personally, I'd be willing to forgo all the in-dev code (book-closing,
> > lots, budgeting and DB-backend) in order to get the next release out the
> > door, in order to unblock starting th
It sounds like we agree there's a problem. But we disagree somewhat
on the analysis of the problem, and therefore the solution.
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:54:48AM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Which do you think is more beneficial to
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 09:54 -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Then why spend time on it _now_? I'm not saying not to spend time on
> it. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be a priority _now_. Help us
> get g2 out the door so we can ensure gnucash's survival. _THEN_ feel
> free to really start rippi
Quoting Josh Sled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Personally, I'd be willing to forgo all the in-dev code (book-closing,
> lots, budgeting and DB-backend) in order to get the next release out the
> door, in order to unblock starting those other changes.
I've already given up on the DB backend for the firs
Chris,
Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Which do you think is more beneficial to the project in the next six
>> months:
>>
>> a) Taking a piece of code that might be architecturally questionable
>>but doesn't crash, doesn't corrupt data, and doesn't cause any
>>visual probl
19 matches
Mail list logo
