2005/10/17, J M Sykes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A word of encouragement.
Having only now come across gnucash, I'd just like to point out that there
might well be a worthwhile demand for a Windows port in UK, among people
here who have been, or soon will be, abandoned by Quicken and, like me,
On Monday 24 October 2005 1:01 am, David Hampton wrote:
On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 15:45 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
QOF - Query Object Framework - library to add a query engine to C
applications with generic XML backend. A SQL database is not needed; any
collection of C/C++ objects can act as
On Sunday 02 October 2005 9:09 am, Tor Harald Thorland wrote:
An example. When i put libgwrapguile-dev for install, synaptics tells me
it will remove g-wrap libgwrap-runtime0-dev and it will install
libgwrapguile 1 in addition to the libgwrapguile-dev.
That is correct. You need:
Peter Meier wrote:
Hallo zusammen,
bisher hat das Aktualisieren von Börsenkurse immer funktioniert.
Jetzt bekomme ich folgende Fehlermeldung: Beim Herunterladen der
Börsenkurse ist ein Systemfehler ausgetreten.
Dieser Fehler kommt bei mir dann vor, wenn es keine Kurse mehr für
ein Wertpapier
Oops, wrong language list on first reply ...
Herbert Thoma wrote:
Peter Meier wrote:
Hallo zusammen,
bisher hat das Aktualisieren von Börsenkurse immer funktioniert.
Jetzt bekomme ich folgende Fehlermeldung: Beim Herunterladen der
Börsenkurse ist ein Systemfehler ausgetreten.
Dieser
Dear Chris,
** Changesets **
** Centralized vs. Distributed **
In summary, I think there are two main reasons for looking
further than SVN for SCM software. 1) Changesets are a big
convenience for all developers. 2) Distributed SCM lets fringe
developers benefit from a real SCM, too.
J M Sykes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A word of encouragement.
Having only now come across gnucash, I'd just like to point out that there
might well be a worthwhile demand for a Windows port in UK, among people here
who have been, or soon will be, abandoned by Quicken and, like me, would
Tor Harald Thorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll installed Ubuntu 5.10., and if I enable the community supported
repo's, then all the packages i'll need are there. Ready to be
installed. On fedora, i'll had to add a lot of different repos to add
the packages, and in the end, that killed my
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 03:37:52PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Dear Chris,
** Changesets **
** Centralized vs. Distributed **
In summary, I think there are two main reasons for looking
further than SVN for SCM software. 1) Changesets are a big
convenience for all developers. 2)
On Mon, 2005-24-10 at 10:53 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
The actual state of things is that there are *very* few developers,
and I think the survival of gnucash depends on attracting more. That
doesn't necessarily require a distributed model, but I think one key
step is providing the
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 02:23:13AM -0400, Volker Englisch wrote:
Volker, thanks! This is quite helpful! :)
| Last not least (this is not related to SX) there is a menu option Misc
| -- Test available on the Accounts window. When selected this displays
| a window with the text
| 'testing
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
I thought this was the main point of SVN, and the motivation for
replacing CVS - that it has atomic changesets that affect many files.
Please see: http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#changesets
for a rather biased, but not unhelpful answer.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 12:38:35PM -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
I thought this was the main point of SVN, and the motivation for
replacing CVS - that it has atomic changesets that affect many files.
Please see:
Quoting Chris Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A very important feature for me is that the repository format stills allows
me to extract the latest version of things if it gets corrupted. I'm
not sure SVN meets that criterion, but CVS does. That was the main
motivation for us moving from SCCS to
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:20:11PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
The problem is that historically the commiters have been restricted
to a trusted group of people,
I disagree that that's the problem, but, assuming you're
right... How's that strategy been working for GnuCash over the past 3
years?
Is anyone proposing a specific re-implementation scenario? I can see a lot
of theorizing on both sides, but nobody saying let's try it *this* way, with
commits looking like *this*, and patches would be submitted like *this*, and
*this* would be the release trunk/tree/whatever, controlled by
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 02:02:51PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
Quoting Chris Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A very important feature for me is that the repository format stills
allows
me to extract the latest version of things if it gets corrupted. I'm
not sure SVN meets that criterion, but
Hi,
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:08:16 +0200, Christian Stimming wrote:
Rauch Christian schrieb:
Christian Stimming schrieb:
But still one question remains just for my understanding.
Why is the argument --build sufficient for 1.8.11, but 1.8.12 needs all
three on the same building system without
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 13:42 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
If you'd like some more detailed info, I'd recommend:
[5] for the heart of the issue in concise terms
[6] for an good overview of the main SCM debate
[8] for an overview of SCM softwares available
[1, 2, 7] for some informative Arch
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 03:03:08PM -0400, Dan Widyono wrote:
Is anyone proposing a specific re-implementation scenario? I can see a lot
of theorizing on both sides, but nobody saying let's try it *this* way, with
commits looking like *this*, and patches would be submitted like *this*, and
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 03:20:15PM -0400, David Hampton wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 14:52 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
It kind of makes me want to respond like others have [1],
but I want to remain constructive.
If you wanted to remain constructive you wouldn't have posted that URL.
On 10/25/05, Derek Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that historically the commiters have been restricted to
a trusted
group of people, but there are a few new developers who have not yet been
given commit access. Honestly I can only think of one developer in
particular.
That
Quoting Chris Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Derek,
I apologize for dredging up the past like that. I said I
wanted to remain constructive, but my actions said otherwise. I wish
I could take it back. I /will/ try to exercise more self-control in
the future. Please forgive me.
I
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 04:45:47PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
| Well, I think *all* development should be on branches.
Ick. Now we have to fight about the benefits of Continuous Integration. :)
(Strangely, its argument [1] has a similar form: [...] fundamental shift
to the whole development
Christian Krause wrote:
Because of all these informations I've come to the conclusion that
gnucash delivers an outdated or broken config.guess, because the
tarball was prepared (especially the autogenerated autotools-depended
files were built) on a distribution with a strange config.guess. From
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 04:59:18PM -0400, Josh Sled wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 04:45:47PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
| Well, I think *all* development should be on branches.
Ick. Now we have to fight about the benefits of Continuous Integration. :)
I can't tell if you're saying
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 04:48:22PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
Quoting Chris Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
PS: I still don't agree with your premise that the gnucash project needs
to radically change its development processes in order to increase the
number of fringe developers. Historically
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:20:11PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
Quoting Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My point is not so much distributed is better than centralized, as
it is lower the barriers to new developers by letting them share code
early and often. Distributed SCM is *one* way to do that.
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 20:37 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
Maybe that's a reasonable criteria for giving someone commit access to
the OneTrueBuild. But, that's not reasonable criteria for giving
someone access to convenient SCM. That's like saying: We love for
people to join us on this trip
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:37:07PM -0400, David Hampton wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 20:37 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
Maybe that's a reasonable criteria for giving someone commit access to
the OneTrueBuild. But, that's not reasonable criteria for giving
someone access to convenient
30 matches
Mail list logo
