Make check failure in backend/dbi/test

With current trunk (being r22938), I run into this make check failure: make[5]: Entering directory `/kobaltnet/janssege/Development/Builds/gnucash-f18- trunk/src/backend/dbi/test' TEST: test-backend-dbi... (pid=5129) /backend/dbi/store_and_reload/sqlite:FAIL GTest

Re: Time for 2.5.1

On Thursday 02 May 2013 11:41:58 John Ralls wrote: > It's a new month and time for a new release of the 2.5 series. I propose to > tag on Saturday around noon PDT (1700Z). Is there anything that needs doing > to get ready? In particular, is the Win32 build issue fixed? > > Regards, > John Ralls >

Re: Time for 2.5.1

On May 3, 2013, at 5:36 AM, Geert Janssens wrote: > On Thursday 02 May 2013 11:41:58 John Ralls wrote: > > It's a new month and time for a new release of the 2.5 series. I propose to > > tag on Saturday around noon PDT (1700Z). Is there anything that needs doing > > to get ready? In particular,

Re: Base And Gnucash

The most important need would be the ability to run custom SQL queries on the underlying data. I have taken another look at Gnucash as I have not tried to use this program in some time. I cannot tell whether this is possible or not. Last time I tried to use this program importing using CSV

Re: Windows Builds

On Thursday 02 May 2013 14:21:42 John Ralls wrote: > On May 2, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Christian Stimming wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2013, 11:41:58 schrieb John Ralls: > >> It's a new month and time for a new release of the 2.5 series. I propose > >> to > >> tag on Saturday around noon PDT (1700Z)

Re: Time for 2.5.1

On Friday 03 May 2013 07:50:59 John Ralls wrote: Derek launched a trunk build yesterday and it completed and copied to Code, so maybe it will be OK. Your changes this morning were too late to trip a rebuild, so we'll have to see if it completes on its own tomorrow morning. Derek also set 2.4

Re: Base And Gnucash

On 3 May 2013 17:21, wrote: > The most important need would be the ability to run custom SQL queries on the > underlying data. > > > I have taken another look at Gnucash as I have not tried to use this program > in some time. I cannot tell whether > this is possible or not. Since one of the op

Re: Windows Builds

On May 3, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Geert Janssens wrote: > On Thursday 02 May 2013 14:21:42 John Ralls wrote: > > On May 2, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Christian Stimming > > wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2013, 11:41:58 schrieb John Ralls: > > >> It's a new month and time for a new release of the 2.5 seri

Time for 2.5.1

I have added a patch on bug 699614 which should change the defaults as requested. Regards, Robert. ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

Re: Windows Builds

John Ralls writes: >> I manually started the 2.4 build again today after configuring it to build >> daily again. I started from the dos command out of daily_build.bat. This >> should give us the same environment as the automatically triggered builds. >> >> This build ran find and uploaded fin

Re: Base And Gnucash

Colin Law writes: > On 3 May 2013 17:21, wrote: >> The most important need would be the ability to run custom SQL >> queries on the underlying data. >> >> >> I have taken another look at Gnucash as I have not tried to use this >> program in some time. I cannot tell whether this is possible or n

Re: Time for 2.5.1

Robert, Robert Fewell <14ubo...@gmail.com> writes: > I have added a patch on bug 699614 which should change the defaults as > requested. Does this change the Business/Invoice register to use the new register code, too, or just Account registers? (I'm just curious) > Regards, > > Robert. -dere

Re: Base And Gnucash

On 5/3/2013 2:21 PM, Derek Atkins wrote: > Colin Law writes: > >> On 3 May 2013 17:21, wrote: >>> The most important need would be the ability to run custom SQL >>> queries on the underlying data. >>> >>> >>> I have taken another look at Gnucash as I have not tried to use this >>> program in som

Time for 2.5.1

Robert, Robert Fewell <14ubobit at gmail.com > writes: >* I have added a patch on bug 699614 which should change the defaults as*>* >requested.* Does this change the Business/Invoice register to use the new register code, too, or just Acc