Very nice--thanks for this. It will help a lot.
Luke
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Chris Travers wrote:
> The first part was to move the defaults data over.
>
> alter table defaults add column setting_key text, value text;
> alter table defaults add column setting_key text;
> alter table defaults add co
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Chris Travers wrote:
> The major ones are:
>
> 2) MUCH improved reconciliation, and plugin model for bank file
> imports (programmer-defined).
>
> 3) Rich capabilities regarding customer/vendor storage, (more options
> for contact info storage, multiple shipto's, etc)
I kne
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Armaghan Saqib wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>> The goal here wasn't just to advertise the services but to provide a
>> framework of how this was done for other consultants to use too. A
>> rising tide floats all boats. Obviously this assumes you have a
>> pretty
Chris Travers wrote:
> The goal here wasn't just to advertise the services but to provide a
> framework of how this was done for other consultants to use too. A
> rising tide floats all boats. Obviously this assumes you have a
> pretty good idea that LedgerSMB 1.2 will work for you.
>
Thanks C
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Luke wrote:
> I would not be interested in paying you to do it (well, I probably would,
> if I had money to use for such a thing), but any tips you might have for
> the process would be greatly appreciated--I still have years of historical
> data in SQL-Ledger, tha
I would not be interested in paying you to do it (well, I probably would,
if I had money to use for such a thing), but any tips you might have for
the process would be greatly appreciated--I still have years of historical
data in SQL-Ledger, that we are going to want out some day, probably next
+1 to everything Ed said.
Using Jeff's repo is fine, and may be a good starting point. I have one,
too, though the branches probably aren't that well organized, and I do
need to add a post-update hook to update the master branch from svn
trunk (there's an svn/trunk branch that is up to date).
But
Hi all;
LedgerSMB 1.2.21 has been released. The complete changelog is as follows:
Changelog for 1.2.21
* Corrected a number of templates with HTML issues (Luke)
* AR/AP Aging Report fixed, ignores payment after report date (Chris T)
* Minor documentation updates (Chris T)
* Fixed bug saving SIC
> I don't see the tarballs as going away either.
Well, no. But CPAN is also a distribution mechanism for tarballs; from
what I've seen (granted, I've never written a CPAN module) it looks like
you can either target CPAN primarily and spin off tarballs from that, or
structure your project so it
Hi Alejandro:
I decided to reply sooner so I don't forget again :-)
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote:
>> Absolutely. What are your ideas here?
>>
>
> Perhaps the p2ee is a bit too radical to port LSMB just like that, but
> I am more than eager for you to take a look at wha
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Alejandro Imass wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Ed W wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2010 21:11, Chris Travers wrote:
Hi all;
I have spent some time looking at Catalyst to see what would be
>>
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Adam Thompson wrote:
>> From: Ian Goodacre [mailto:ian.gooda...@xtra.co.nz]
>>
>> Is there a problem with current distribution methods?
>
> Yes.
>
> Somewhere north of 80% of potential users will not install software if it
> isn't available in either their distrib
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Ed W wrote:
>> On 09/03/2010 21:11, Chris Travers wrote:
>>> Hi all;
>>>
>>> I have spent some time looking at Catalyst to see what would be
>>> required to make LedgerSMB run according to current development
Hi all;
Late last night I completed a migration for a customer from SQL-Ledger
2.8 to LedgerSMB 1.2.
It wasn't a tremendous amount of work (it took me around three hours
and a fair bit of that was being out of practice with old pre-1.2
versions of LedgerSMB). In addition to offering the service t
> From: Ian Goodacre [mailto:ian.gooda...@xtra.co.nz]
>
> Is there a problem with current distribution methods?
Yes.
Somewhere north of 80% of potential users will not install software if it
isn't available in either their distribution's repository (ports tree,
apt/yum/that-thing-SLES-uses, por
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 12:27 -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
> What do folks think about moving to CPAN as a distribution mechanism
> for 2.0 and perhaps only seeing Sourceforge as for bundle
> distributions?
I think CPAN works very well for distribution of Perl modules to be
installed to the standard
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Ed W wrote:
> On 09/03/2010 21:11, Chris Travers wrote:
>> Hi all;
>>
>> I have spent some time looking at Catalyst to see what would be
>> required to make LedgerSMB run according to current development
>> approaches (close to the db, etc) and the result isn't eas
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Ed W wrote:
> On 14/03/2010 05:39, Adam Thompson wrote:
>> I don't follow this logic. SVN is perfectly capable of branching;
>> merging and back-porting isn't as easy between branches as, say, git or
>> bzr, but it looks like the codebases of 1.2, 1.3 and 2.0 will
> Chris said earlier that in the US, an account and routing number is enough
> to initiate an ACH transfer out.
>
Yeah, I think the point is that in some countries the banking security
varies and it's been noted that in the US the account number is
sufficient that it can be mis-used to with
On 09/03/2010 19:37, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>> "Chris" == Chris Travers writes:
>>
> Chris> As we move more to an addon-centric model, it seems to me we
> Chris> have two choices:
>
> Chris> 1) We could recommend that addons get their own project sp
On 14/03/2010 05:39, Adam Thompson wrote:
> I don't follow this logic. SVN is perfectly capable of branching;
> merging and back-porting isn't as easy between branches as, say, git or
> bzr, but it looks like the codebases of 1.2, 1.3 and 2.0 will be
> sufficiently different that it would be highl
On 09/03/2010 21:11, Chris Travers wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> I have spent some time looking at Catalyst to see what would be
> required to make LedgerSMB run according to current development
> approaches (close to the db, etc) and the result isn't easy.
> Basically, at a minimum, the following would nee
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Chris Travers wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:57 AM, David Godfrey wrote:
Hi Luke
I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood your need.
As Chris has determined that a "proper" fix is not viable at this time,
w
23 matches
Mail list logo
