On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Luke wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011, Chris Travers wrote:
>
probably a good idea to find a mode where releases get only big enough
to address a small number of specific issues (and the regular bug
fixes) on the point releases. That might satisfy only
On Thu, 19 May 2011, Luke wrote:
> Why not start phasing out (by rewriting) SL/old code, during the
> sub-releases of 1.3?
> After the main release of 1.3.0, set a list of things to be rewritten. As
> bugs are fixed, etc., and new versions are released, the replacement code
> can be incorporated
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Chris Travers wrote:
>>> probably a good idea to find a mode where releases get only big enough
>>> to address a small number of specific issues (and the regular bug
>>> fixes) on the point releases. That might satisfy only a small group of
>>> current users, but the continued
> "John" == John Locke writes:
John> Huh, that's kind of funny, reconciliation is only important to
John> me because the reconciliation in 1.2 so totally screwed up our
John> books we've basically had to start over. The reconciliation in
Right, which is why I keep wanting to move
On 05/18/2011 02:36 PM, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> To me, this means being able to develop using the customers model,
> differentiating between companies and people. To John Locke this seems
> to mean the a stable Reconciliation interface. What does this mean to
> others?
>
Huh, that's kind of funny,
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Luke wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>
>> From other people's reactions I concluded it's not clear enough
>> "what's in it for them". In other words, in what ways does 1.3
>> actually contributes to the goals they may be trying to achieve.
>
> F
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
From other people's reactions I concluded it's not clear enough
"what's in it for them". In other words, in what ways does 1.3
actually contributes to the goals they may be trying to achieve.
For me, from a usability standpoint, the only thing I *know
Hey guys and Chris.
I know I've been absent from the project, but i want to share a few
thoughts. First off, I want to thank you for all the effort on the
project, both 1.2 and 1.3. And for all the support I received while I
was contributing to the project.
After a year+ of development, and the i
Hi Chris,
Thanks for taking the time to write down what your ideas are about
the future direction of the project! And thanks for your continued
support of the project too.
> Many of you may be frustrated at the pace of development of LedgerSMB
> and the fact that 1.3 has not yet been released.
Hi Luke
> Until you release a full version of 1.3, it is likely that you'll still
> have many users on 1.2. I'm sorry to say it, but because of the track
> record, holding out for 1.3 and not bothering to fix bugs found in 1.2
> after the next release, seems like just another way the user base w
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Chris Travers wrote:
> For the last few years, LedgerSMB has achieved significant growth.
> Some of that growth has come at an organizational cost and for that I
> apologize to the community. Now I have to try to help put the
> organizational stuff back together.
We had the
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Luke wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011, John Locke wrote:
>
>> Thank you for all your hard work on LedgerSMB, I really appreciate the
>> time and effort you continue to put into it.
>
> +1!
>
>> I hate to be a whiner here, but trying to work with LSMB 1.3 has been
>> fr
On Wed, 18 May 2011, John Locke wrote:
> Thank you for all your hard work on LedgerSMB, I really appreciate the
> time and effort you continue to put into it.
+1!
> I hate to be a whiner here, but trying to work with LSMB 1.3 has been
> frustrating. Stupid bugs on just about every action you try
Hi, Chris,
Thank you for all your hard work on LedgerSMB, I really appreciate the
time and effort you continue to put into it.
I'm very glad to hear this call for help, and for community involvement.
I've been having a growing frustration myself at the slow pace of
development, how far 1.3 still
We were looking to develop a payroll module for Washington State a few
years back. But we were waiting for the improved 1.3 architecture before
starting, and it took too long -- now our shop is pretty firmly focused
on Drupal development.
On 05/18/2011 05:51 AM, Adrian Levi wrote:
> On 18 May 2011
On 18 May 2011 10:34, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Adrian Levi wrote:
>
>> Is there a payrole function in the works, what would it cost me to
>> have one written?
>>
>> Watching progress in LSMB with interest.
>
> Well, payroll is a nightmare because of so many national
Exactly, thanks for translating it into program language :)
ario
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 20:03 -0400, Luke wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2011, ario wrote:
>
> > How about only raising a flag when you press a button that would make
> > you leave the transaction window?
>
> Onclick::AnnoyUser("Unposted,
17 matches
Mail list logo
