On Saturday 30 May 2015 17:12:08 John Ralls wrote:
> > On May 30, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Chris Good
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi John & Geert,
> >
> > Everybody has had a chance to express their opinion now.
> > There doesn't seem to be a consensus on what the version number
> > segments should be called in
> On May 30, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Chris Good wrote:
>
> Hi John & Geert,
>
> Everybody has had a chance to express their opinion now.
> There doesn't seem to be a consensus on what the version number segments
> should be called in the community as a whole.
> There has been a lot of good informatio
-Original Message-
> From: Geert Janssens [mailto:geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be]
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2015 1:32 AM
> To: gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
> Cc: David Raker; Chris Good
> Subject: Re: Version Numbering
>
> David,
>
> Thank you for your input. It more or
David,
Thank you for your input. It more or less summarizes what I believe is a
pretty common versioning strategy in many free software projects. And
since we are a free software project ourselves we"d need good reasons to
follow a different route as doing so reduces the common knowledge
advan
Am 29.03.2015 um 00:02 schrieb Chris Good:
I think it is generally agreed, (from the small number of opinions
expressed so far), that level 2 should be Major and level 3 should be Minor.
Can everyone that has an opinion please let us know, particularly regarding
the level 1 name?
Well, IIRC, we
My vote doesn’t count for much, but for me Fundamental.Major.Minor makes the
most sense.
David R.’s designation (Major.Minor.Point) also works for me, though—and
following convention is something I think is worth an awful lot. There’s
something to be said for matching general expectations.
Da
My input probably isn't very merited, since though I joined this list with
the intention of contributing, I haven't actually found the time.
Nonetheless, I do some development and systems administration for
clients, and when discussing version numbers what I most commonly
encounter (and use on s
Hi All,
I've asked for people to give their opinions on a GnuCash version numbering
system as, from my few small documentation contributions, I think this
should be defined somewhere.
I'll summarise what I've observed so far now that's it's been a week.
There has been some good input about what
Am Montag, 23. März 2015, 09:20:56 schrieb John Ralls:
> > Instead,
> > from my point of view we should consider incrementing our first version
> > number from 2 to 3 at some not-too-distant point in the future, as soon
> > as this number change would represent something useful for the user. For
>
On 3/23/15 12:20 AM, John Ralls wrote:
What about API breaks in the Scheme and Python bindings? Not something
most users care about, but folks with custom scripts sure do. We've
always said that we don't guarantee API stability between major
versions, but we also promote the bindings pretty hea
> On Mar 23, 2015, at 6:41 AM, Christian Stimming
> wrote:
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> thanks for bringing up this question. In fact there are different views on
> this topic around. I consider the version number as part of our marketing
> communication to potential users. As such, the first-most nu
Dear Chris,
thanks for bringing up this question. In fact there are different views on
this topic around. I consider the version number as part of our marketing
communication to potential users. As such, the first-most number of our
software should represent something that is meaningful to the
> -Original Message-
> From: John Ralls [mailto:jra...@ceridwen.us]
> Sent: Sunday, 22 March 2015 2:59 PM
> To: Chris Good
> Cc: gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
> Subject: Re: Version Numbering
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Chris Good <
<mailt
> On Mar 22, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Chris Good wrote:
>
>> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 21:17:50 +0900
>> From: John Ralls
>> To: Geert Janssens
>> Cc: gnucash-devel@gnucash.org, Chris Good
>> Subject: Re: [Bug 744918] Update Help Manual for Mike Alexanders mods
>> to Advanced Portfolio Rpt
>> Mess
14 matches
Mail list logo
