Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Upcoming 2.0 of LedgerSMB

2010-07-24 Thread Luke
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, David F. Skoll wrote: >> We *need* at least as an option to provide simple, easy to modify, >> preferably from the browser, templates. > > How many people have asked for that? (Just curious.) I don't know, but I lost one significant corporate customer in part because of it.

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Upcoming 2.0 of LedgerSMB

2010-07-24 Thread Luke
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > 2.0 of LedgerSMB is going to branch soon. The primary goal of 2.0 is to Is there any intent to do a final release of 1.3, or will it continue to be worked on concurrently? > eliminate all legacy code from our SQL-Ledger heritage. However, there > ar

[Ledger-smb-devel] SODA 2.0

2010-07-24 Thread o1bigtenor
Greetings Went looking for what this is. I cannot find anything that seems to make sense. (I am finding something for database access but it is in version 0.7) Would someone please point me to where I might find some information on this? Darald ---

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Upcoming 2.0 of LedgerSMB

2010-07-24 Thread David A. Bandel
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 17:08, David F. Skoll wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Latex may be great for you but if I walk into an office and say, "Sue, >> here is how you customize templates" and its tex? I might as well walk >> back out, cause she will have none of it. > > If you are dreaming o

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Upcoming 2.0 of LedgerSMB

2010-07-24 Thread Gerald Chudyk
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 16:24 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote: >> Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> > I firmly believe we need to eliminate Latex or at least not make it a >> > requirement and move to more modern technologies to generate invoices. >>

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Upcoming 2.0 of LedgerSMB

2010-07-24 Thread David F. Skoll
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Latex may be great for you but if I walk into an office and say, "Sue, > here is how you customize templates" and its tex? I might as well walk > back out, cause she will have none of it. If you are dreaming of a situation in which LedgerSMB is used *and customized* by "a

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Upcoming 2.0 of LedgerSMB

2010-07-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 16:24 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > I firmly believe we need to eliminate Latex or at least not make it a > > requirement and move to more modern technologies to generate invoices. > > What? Why? LaTeX produces beautiful output and makes it ea

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Upcoming 2.0 of LedgerSMB

2010-07-24 Thread Darren Wiebe
On 24/07/2010 1:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > 2.0 of LedgerSMB is going to branch soon. The primary goal of 2.0 is to > eliminate all legacy code from our SQL-Ledger heritage. However, there > are other goals that others may have that I would like to start a > discussion on. > > My P

Re: [Ledger-smb-devel] Upcoming 2.0 of LedgerSMB

2010-07-24 Thread David F. Skoll
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I firmly believe we need to eliminate Latex or at least not make it a > requirement and move to more modern technologies to generate invoices. What? Why? LaTeX produces beautiful output and makes it easy to customize the printed results. What do you propose to use inst

[Ledger-smb-devel] Upcoming 2.0 of LedgerSMB

2010-07-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Hello, 2.0 of LedgerSMB is going to branch soon. The primary goal of 2.0 is to eliminate all legacy code from our SQL-Ledger heritage. However, there are other goals that others may have that I would like to start a discussion on. My Primary goals are: I firmly believe we need to eliminate Latex