On Jan 9, 2008 9:29 PM, Ian Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/1/8, Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Quoting Ian Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >> Would it make sense to provide a boolean checkbox somewhere in the
> > >> druid if we find one of these transactions to ask the user ho
2008/1/8, Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Quoting Ian Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> Would it make sense to provide a boolean checkbox somewhere in the
> >> druid if we find one of these transactions to ask the user how to
> >> treat them?
> >
> > Unfortunately, I'm not sure the user would
On Jan 8, 2008 5:02 AM, Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Charles Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For your consideration, I've attached a patch that allows QIF split
> > transactions with zero in the "T" line to pass through without sign
> reversal
> > (also described above).
>
> W
Sorry about the misattribution - I think Derek suggested the checkbox.
And yes, I am offering to collect at least the issues I am running
across and write them up for posterity. There is nothing earth
shattering (my biggest problems were fixed by patches that have already
been committed).
-
Quoting "William D. Hamblen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Maybe recording the fact that this issue (and others like it) exist
> would be worthy of an entry in the wiki? I imagine one of the more
> common uses of the QIF importer is people coming from other
> applications and while that will almost n
Quoting Ian Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Would it make sense to provide a boolean checkbox somewhere in the
>> druid if we find one of these transactions to ask the user how to
>> treat them?
>
> Unfortunately, I'm not sure the user would know unless you start asking
> stuff like, "Was this QIF c
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Ian Lewis wrote:
>> "Charles Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Would it make sense to provide a boolean checkbox somewhere in the
>> druid if we find one of these transactions to ask the user how to
>> treat them?
>
> Unfortunately, I'm not sure the user would know unless
2008/1/8, Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Charles Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For your consideration, I've attached a patch that allows QIF split
> > transactions with zero in the "T" line to pass through without sign
> reversal
> > (also described above).
>
> Would it make sense
"Charles Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For your consideration, I've attached a patch that allows QIF split
> transactions with zero in the "T" line to pass through without sign reversal
> (also described above).
Would it make sense to provide a boolean checkbox somewhere in the
druid if we f
On Jan 6, 2008 1:33 AM, Charles Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 2:54 PM, Charles Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 2008 9:37 AM, William D. Hamblen <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Derek Atkins wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On Jan 4, 2008 2:54 PM, Charles Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 9:37 AM, William D. Hamblen <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Derek Atkins wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Charles Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > >> There is some code in the QIF
On Jan 5, 2008 12:18 AM, Thomas Baumgart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> on Friday 04 January 2008 23:54, Charles Day wrote:
>
> > > The biggest problem with QIF is that there really is no standard.
> > >
> > > > There are so many different ways to doing it that getting it right
> > > > 1
Hi all,
on Friday 04 January 2008 23:54, Charles Day wrote:
> > The biggest problem with QIF is that there really is no standard.
> >
> > > There are so many different ways to doing it that getting it right
> > > 100% of the time is impossible.
>
> I'd hazard to say that how Quicken uses QIF is t
On Jan 4, 2008 9:37 AM, William D. Hamblen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Derek Atkins wrote:
>
> > Quoting Charles Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> There is some code in the QIF importer which says that if a QIF split
> >> transaction adds up to zero, then the
Hi everyone,
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Charles Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> There is some code in the QIF importer which says that if a QIF split
>> transaction adds up to zero, then the signs of all of its split lines
>> must get reversed. It looks very deliberate. Doe
Hi,
Quoting Charles Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There is some code in the QIF importer which says that if a QIF split
> transaction adds up to zero, then the signs of all of its split lines must
> get reversed. It looks very deliberate. Does anyone know why this would
> be? It is causing a probl
There is some code in the QIF importer which says that if a QIF split
transaction adds up to zero, then the signs of all of its split lines must
get reversed. It looks very deliberate. Does anyone know why this would
be? It is causing a problem: because the signs get reversed, any split
lines tha
17 matches
Mail list logo
