Hi Tom,
On 2010-08-25, at 08:06, Tom Bullock wrote:
> [...]
> The next step is to review both log listings: code and documentation. When
> that is done, then I submit my findings to this list to see what the
> developers' reaction is. When the list is adjusted to a general consensus,
> it wi
On 2010-08-25, at 08:29, Geert Janssens wrote:
>> [...]
>> On 2010-07-19, at 13:53, Thomas Bullock wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Recent emails mentioned that the existing documentation is last current
>>> for version 1.8. Current stable is 2.2.9 and soon to be 2.4 in the not
>>> distant future, it seems
On 2010-08-25, at 08:47, Geert Janssens wrote:
>> [...]
> Hmm, in my opinion this would not be as useful as using parameter entities to
> define current-stable, next-stable and so on.
>
> gnucash-docs' trunk is not meant to apply to all versions of GnuCash. It
> should only apply to the trunk
Geert Janssens writes:
[snip]
> Hmm, in my opinion this would not be as useful as using parameter entities to
> define current-stable, next-stable and so on.
Seconded.
I think it's useful to parameterize the version numbers.
I do NOT think it's useful to parameterize sections of the DOCS. The
On Wednesday 25 August 2010, Yawar Amin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2010-07-19, at 13:53, Thomas Bullock wrote:
> > Geert and others,
> >
> > The discussion about version references in code for soon to be reached
> > 2.4 makes me realize I need to find out the conventional wisdom regarding
> > version ref
On 8/25/2010 1:59 AM, Yawar Amin wrote:
In the meantime, what's the best way to look for version-specific differences
in the docs? Do a diff in the sources between revisions tagged 2.2 and 2.4, or
something like that?
Yawar,
I forgot to say that right now I also am working on developing a
