Sheelagh:
You asked for suggestions and mine is this: Don't do it! If you go through
the archives you'll see several discussions on this topic with experienced
users pretty heavily on the side of maintaining one database except in very
unusual situations. You'll also read there about the
Hi Sheelagh,
I agree with Anne - don't split your file up. I wish I hadn't now, and
am slowly working towards merging them back together.
There are tools you can use to help identify people. Use the Ancestor
Colour Coding (Options Customise View tab) to colour code your
direct-line
Jennifer:
Without doing extensive testing, I can see that the relationship sources are
scrambled as you say. If you report this bug I'm sure it will be corrected,
and the fix will be retroactive so any of those sources that you've already
entered will then print correctly.
Kirsten
Kirsten,
Without at least doing a File Maintenance/Check Repair on the files I would be
very loath to say it's a bug, it could well be due to corrupted files or
incorrect entries (and I have no time to check this today), and these are just
two possibilities off the top of my head. It should
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Dick wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM, aplebary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Kevin, I guess I will have to look into another device since
I prefer Legacy to any other program. I am planning a trip
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:51:35 +0100, ronald ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Without at least doing a File Maintenance/Check Repair on the files I would be
very loath to say it's a bug, it could well be due to corrupted files
If something gets corrupted, I would be more inclined to lean toward
Sheelagh,
I tried this a long time ago, when my data base was a LOT smaller.
This duplicated some people by having them in 2 or more files. I would
forget all the files they were in and make a change to only one of the
files, In a while, this became a real mess. With Susie updated in the A
Toni
Thank you for your comments
Cheers
Sheelagh
- Original Message -
From: Toni Allen
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:48 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Legacy 7 - Split up to different family groups and
Save
Sheelagh,
I tried
Dennis,
I do agree, but this morning I was on my way out and have only just returned.
On a quick read through the email I was not convinced anything is wrong, or to
be more accurate, if there is, it is somewhat less then supposed.
It is still unlikely that I will be able to do a proper
Legacy classes/seminars/workshops are scheduled for Arizona, British
Columbia, California, Maine, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington. If
you live in any of these areas, and are interested, visit
http://legacynews.typepad.com/legacy_news/2008/08/upcoming-legacy.html for
more information.
Dennis: I have done a file maintenance/check repair. The same thing keeps
occuring. I ran some other family group sheets on other families, and the same
kinds of things also occurred. I have a second database. I will try it with
that one tonight.
Ron: Thanks in advance for taking a look at it
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:59:48 -0700 (PDT), Jennifer Trahan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis: I have done a file maintenance/check repair. The same thing keeps
occuring. I ran some other family group sheets on other families, and the same
kinds of things also occurred. I have a second database. I
Dennis:
Sorry, forgot to mention that. It is 7.0.0.55. I never tried sourcing
relationships in any previous version, so I couldn't say whether there was a
problem or not in the past.
Jennifer
--- On Thu, 8/21/08, Dennis M. Kowallek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dennis M. Kowallek [EMAIL
I wonder if it is possible to change the line Children from this marriage
(or alike...I am not sure as I am using the Dutch output) in something
like `Children from this relation and marriage`. I have children that have
a different family name but that have been identified as coming from the
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:50:20 -0700 (PDT), Jennifer Trahan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a bug of some sort?
I have just tried sourcing a few child-parent relationships and am
getting very strange results on the Family Group Record in V6.
I sourced mine with source A and my daughter's with
If I understand what you are doing: you have Charles relationship to his
parents sourced, but when you choose that option when he is the parent, you
are expecting to see the source of this relationship in a family group
sheet. When I do this, I get the anticipated result. That is, I have a
Rob Vader wrote
I wonder if it is possible to change the line Children from this
marriage (or alike...I am not sure as I am using the Dutch output)
in something like `Children from this relation and marriage`. I have
children that have a different family name but that have been
I'm on V 7.0.0.55 and can also confirm something not quite right I
tagged a set of about 20 people, half related, half not.
About 17 of the 20 people are sourced to the same document - with original
V6 sourcing, the rest are not.
I then CREATED a BRAND NEW source using the Source Writer and
Elizabeth,
Yes, you are correct in understanding what I am saying. Do you have an extra
line on your family group sheet called Child-Par. Rel. under the wife's name?
This is where I am finding the problem. In the family group sheet with Charles
as husband, the line containing Charles' father's
Carol
I teach the LUG in Burbank CA, and am curious about the details of the class.
Are you the teacher, or on the staff at the center. Are you creating a sylabus,
and could I get one without signing up for the class(free not required). I have
sent a similar message to Geoff, since I saw it on
In a FGS, the parents of both the husband and wife are shown, when known,
whether or not the relationship is defined and/or sourced. If it is defined
and sourced, the source shows. When the child/parent relationship is defined
and sourced, and the person is a child on the FGS, there is a
Let me try answering this again. I have sourced Sallie Thompson as the
biological daughter of Andrew Thompson. On the FGS where Sallie is the wife
is:
Father: Andrew Thompson (1780-abt1865) (Relationship: Biological[source#])
This is all on one line and there is not an additional line called
Elizabeth et al:
I think I am finally getting somewhere. My sources were all SourceWriter. I
deleted all sources for Charles, Blanche, and all children for Mother and
Father Relationship. I then used a Basic source to source Charles'
relationships with his mother and father. When I did this,
Tracy,
I wonder if you have tried any of the suggestions and what might have been
the results.
Could you let us know?
I have one other suggestion, but I don't know how it would work. On the
notes for any of your people, you can add a source for the notes. If you
wrote the information you have
Why is it when I choose Pack information on one line as an option for
a html descendants chart, instead of everything being on one line,
everything's broken up across two or three lines per person as if
there's a shortage of page space. In actual fact, half the page is wide
open with nothing
Hi Legacy People
Yesterday I subscribed to the LUG Mailing List after several years absence
and for some reason I am now receiving two of every posting. I tried
unsubscribing and resubscribing but that didn't fix the problem. I would
appreciate your help please.
Thanks,
--
Anne Wheel
You might try [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 8/21/2008 8:49:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Legacy People
Yesterday I subscribed to the LUG Mailing List after several years absence
and for some reason I am now receiving two of every posting. I tried
Thanks but I've figured it out!! Not realising that I had an old sort
rule in my email program, I set up a new one yesterday. And when your
response came through it showed only 1 incoming email, and then the light
came on. ;o)
Cheers, Anne
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
28 matches
Mail list logo
