On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> In 1.3 (Trunk) we already have this:
I'll have a look. My general aversion to the black-holeish nature of 1.3
has prevented me from noticing thus far.
Luke
--
The Palm PDK
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:13 -0400, Luke wrote:
> If there is a notes table:
>
> noteID (sequence)
> invoiceID
> type (enum: original, internal, additional)
> added (timestamp)
> note
>
> Originals can be created (unique per invoice) and viewed.
> Internals can be created and viewed.
> Additional
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 21:53 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake writes:
>>> I would go for permanent invoices AND non-editable invoices (notes not
>>> included).
>>
>> Notes can be important and need to be preserved. How about permitting
>> n
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 21:53 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes:
> > I would go for permanent invoices AND non-editable invoices (notes not
> > included).
>
> Notes can be important and need to be preserved. How about permitting
> notes to be added but not altered?
Thus the (notes
Joshua D. Drake writes:
> I would go for permanent invoices AND non-editable invoices (notes not
> included).
Notes can be important and need to be preserved. How about permitting
notes to be added but not altered?
> The proper acct workflow is that if an invoice has a mistake and has
> been pos
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, David F. Skoll wrote:
> I like to be able to edit invoices. People are human and sometimes
> make mistakes that don't get noticed until the invoice is printed.
> But I guess if this violates accounting practices, I can live with
> canceling the invoice and making a new one.
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 19:57 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Luke wrote:
>
> > Oh, and I would like to see invoices that don't change after the fact,
>
> +1 on this.
>
> > The other thing on invoices is editable notes.
>
> And on this.
>
> It's worse than ironic that the default work flow does
Luke wrote:
> Oh, and I would like to see invoices that don't change after the fact,
+1 on this.
> The other thing on invoices is editable notes.
And on this.
It's worse than ironic that the default work flow does not let you edit
non-sensitive parts of invoices, but silently changes the tota
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> What features would you like to see in 2.0?
Oh, and I would like to see invoices that don't change after the fact,
to-wit:
I have an invoice for a non-taxable customer. That customer was later
changed to be taxable.
The invoice still shows up corr
Joshua D. Drake writes:
> What features would you like to see in 2.0?
A Perl http mini server suitable for testing and debugging the code during
development and customization, prior to production deployment.
Jeff
--
Th
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> What features would you like to see in 2.0?
One that I would actually be willing to write (I think), depending upon
the interface, is a context help system.
Another thing that has been lacking for a long time, is flexibility in
action chains. Ther
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> What features would you like to see in 2.0?
>
>> The number one feature for me is:
>
>> # Updated and Modernized interface
-1.:) I do see the value of that, but as a primary development goal,
there are too many other thin
o1bigtenor writes:
> I had filed a request to have at least 7 digits available for
>accounts. That should enable a few sub-accounts!
Unfortunately it takes more than that.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Hi,
My wish list, besides the mentioned before and without deep knowledge of
SMB:
* Automaticly refresh currency exchange rate from official web services
(configurable somehow: when, from, which with multiple currencies).
Example: In Hungary we must use www.mnb.hu, others should use anything els
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:44 AM, o1bigtenor wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:44 AM, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> Joshua D. Drake writes:
>> > What features would you like to see in 2.0?
>>
>> Subaccounts.
>>
>
> I had filed a request to have at least 7 digits available for accounts.
> That s
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:44 AM, John Hasler wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes:
> > What features would you like to see in 2.0?
>
> Subaccounts.
>
I had filed a request to have at least 7 digits available for accounts.
That should enable a few sub-accounts!
I would like this too very very much!
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What features would you like to see in 2.0?
>
> The number one feature for me is:
>
Redesign the database. No sense building on sand.
Gerald.
--
The
Joshua D. Drake writes:
> What features would you like to see in 2.0?
Subaccounts.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
--
The Palm PDK Hot Apps Program offers developers who use the
Plug-In Development Ki
I already said this in a previous email, but:
# Robust installation documentation. (Not "simplified installation", I
just want a single set of detailed install instructions that aren't
missing steps or relying on magic.)
-Adam Thompson
athom...@athompso.net
> -Original Message-
> F
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> What features would you like to see in 2.0?
> The number one feature for me is:
> # Updated and Modernized interface
I don't care at all about that :) Here's what I'd like to see:
o A proper API, preferably REST-based.
o A trigger mechanism that can invoke actions (
Hello,
What features would you like to see in 2.0?
The number one feature for me is:
# Updated and Modernized interface
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Eng
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 01:35 -0400, Luke wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, David F. Skoll wrote:
>
> > John Hasler wrote:
> >
> >> Sounds like much larger companies than I'm referring to.
> >
> > We are a small company (8 people) and we outsource payroll. It is
> > just so much simpler, and it's reall
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, John Hasler wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes:
>> Captcha is pretty common. It isn't discrimination.
It is, starting in the sense that hotels with only steps to reach the lobby
and no ramps, discriminate against those who find wheelchairs to be more
useful than legs. It goes
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:14:51 +0100 (BST), MJ Ray
> wrote:
> > site expects all humans to be able to pass eyetests. Please could
> > you switch that off or allow another way to register that doesn't
> > require specific physical abilities?
>
> You can obviously see the si
24 matches
Mail list logo
