Speaking strictly as a user of GnuCash, I like the current auto-save as implemented i.e. save-to-working-file; thanks, Christian!
I've never played around with a GnuCash file, decided I didn't like the changes and closed without saving (but strangely enough, I do that with other programs), but that's just me. I guess if I were intending to "play" with my data file, I would either disable the auto-save or work on a backup copy of the file (the latter probably the safer choice). On the other hand, I can see the benefits of a save-to-checkpoint-file. But, if I could put in my 2 cents, whatever the developers decide, please: 1) inform the user of any change in behaviour that could adversely affect their data file (similar to Chris Shoemaker's option #4) , and 2) decide which method to use (save-to-working-file or save-to-checkpoint-file) and stick with it. Nothing annoys me more than a too-frequently-changing data file behaviour. If the developers are uncertain as to which method will ultimately become permanent, I would say disable the feature for 2.2.0 John New On July 5, 2007 04:44 am, Christian Stimming wrote: > 14:40:57 <warlord> Hmm, are we going to have a 2.1.6? > 16:21:25 <andi5> warlord: wrt 2.1.6, if we plan not to revert the > auto-save feature, we might want to have another test version.... iff > christian wants to extend / improve it.... if we just change the > default to disabled auto-save, then i am fine with no 2.1.6 as well... > 16:21:52 <warlord> andi5: ok > > I don't want to extend/improve the auto-save feature before 2.2.0 (not > enough time available). For that reason I don't think we need another > 2.1.6 but should plan for 2.2.0 on the weekend July 15th, > http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Release_Schedule > > It seems to me the "perfect" solution would be to have a separate > save-to-checkpoint function as opposed to the save-to-working-file, > with extra auto-restore questions at startup, as outlined here by Eric > Ladner > http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-user/2007-July/020890.html > This would require major changes in our saving infrastructure, which > I'm not going to do in the upcoming 1-3 months. > > As an aside, I'd like to point out that the current auto-save > behaviour represents exactly how gnucash would behave with a > database-backend currently, as explained here correctly > http://lists.gnucash.org/logs/2007-07-04.html#T15:30:38 > > But for 2.2.0 we have the following choices: > > #1: Auto-save-datafile is enabled by default, just with a different > default value (5 minutes? 10 Minutes?), and the explanation dialog box > pops up upon the very first auto-save activation. Users would have to > into the preferences to disable this feature. > > #2: Auto-save-datafile will be enabled once, then on the explanation > dialog box the user is asked whether she/he wants to have this > enabled: "auto-save ... blabla ... Do you want to enable or disable > this? [Enable] [Disable]" > > #3: Auto-save is disabled by default and users have to find out the > Option by themselves to enable it. No extra dialog explanation will be > shown for this option, neither after startup nor at activation time or > whatever. Using this feature is therefore restricted to those users > who happen to stumble upon this during browsing through the preferences. > > The feedback from gnucash-user clearly points toward #3. However, my > main intention was to implement a feature that helps "the normal user" > to decrease the negative outcome of when an error occurs. This boils > down to the question what behaviour "the normal user" actually expects > from gnucash. As a programmer I know that my way of understanding > gnucash is probably rather different from what "the normal user" does. > However, I'm not so sure whether the gnucash-user feedback talks more > about "the normal user" expectation than what I would think of, > because those subscribers are power-users just as we are. (For > example, my wife says the new auto-save behaviour is just fine and > understandable, whereas the abovementioned > "restore-checkpoint-at-startup" behaviour would be utterly confusing > for her - she never really understands what she is supposed to answer > when a program asks at startup about "restoring whatever thingy is > also there". I'm just saying we developers have to find a decision > which doesn't necessarily conform with the majority of feedback on our > mailing lists. Neither we ourselves nor even the users of our mailing > lists might correspond "the normal user" in a representative way. > Decisions, decisions... > > Following this way of thought I would decide for choice #1, leave > as-is for 2.2.0. What do the other developers say? > > Christian > > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-devel mailing list > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
