Hi Chris;
I think there may be some misunderstandings here :-)
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Chris Bennett <
ch...@bennettconstruction.biz> wrote:
> 4 and 5 sound good, but also a bit complex for someone wanting to
> contribute to get their mind wrapped around it. I think some good
> document
the changes
> below would make it easier for me to contribute, others harder...
>
>
>
> Original Message ----
> Subject: [Ledger-smb-devel] RFC: Proposed Framework Change for 1.4
> From: Chris Travers
> To: Development discussion for LedgerSMB
>
> Date: Mo
Chris Travers wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> While the 1.3 framework is a great improvement on the 1.2 framework, I
> have noticed a number of things that I think should be changed, as
> well as a few new opportunities to simplify things in 1.4.
>
> First, I would like to propose that 1.4 be targetted at
ers harder...
Original Message
Subject: [Ledger-smb-devel] RFC: Proposed Framework Change for 1.4
From: Chris Travers
To: Development discussion for LedgerSMB
Date: Mon 20 Jul 2009 02:00:08 PM PDT
> Hi all;
>
> While the 1.3 framework is a great improvement on the 1.2 framework,
Hi all;
While the 1.3 framework is a great improvement on the 1.2 framework, I have
noticed a number of things that I think should be changed, as well as a few
new opportunities to simplify things in 1.4.
First, I would like to propose that 1.4 be targetted at PostgreSQL 8.4 or
higher, and requir
