Op donderdag 7 mei 2020 17:19:24 CEST schreef jean laroche:
> I fully agree that it's non trivial. It's a combinatorial problem in
> theory, to find the match that gives the highest overall score.
> But this is academic musing! In practice, we're not faced with
> complicated types of scenario and t
Op dinsdag 12 mei 2020 16:06:05 CEST schreef Christopher Lam:
> Updatedvia https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/57fe0515
> (commit)
>via https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/b4d7386d (commit)
> from https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/ebd9db89 (commit)
>
>
Op woensdag 13 mei 2020 14:17:20 CEST schreef Geert Janssens:
> Op dinsdag 12 mei 2020 16:06:05 CEST schreef Christopher Lam:
> > Updated via https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/57fe0515
(commit)
> >
> > via https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/commit/b4d7386d (commit)
> >
>
Hi the branch name was originally 'maint-'. Github doesn't allow changing
branch names without creating a new PR. So, next time I'll just need to
amend the merge commit message (and also add a #link to PR).
On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 12:21, Geert Janssens
wrote:
> Op woensdag 13 mei 2020 14:17:20 CE
Op woensdag 13 mei 2020 14:50:45 CEST schreef Christopher Lam:
> Hi the branch name was originally 'maint-'. Github doesn't allow changing
> branch names without creating a new PR. So, next time I'll just need to
> amend the merge commit message (and also add a #link to PR).
That would also be suf
> Why is that a bug ? Particularly in the case of cleared splits I
don't think
You're right, that's not a bug. What's a bug is to allow matching a
transaction that was previously matched
(i.e., one with online_id). This is now fixed in maint.
j.
___
John,
Thank you, log file back to how it was.
Regards,
Bob
On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 22:49, John Ralls wrote:
> I'd screwed up a couple of things, now fixed and pushed.
>
> Regards,
> John Ralls
>
>
> > On May 12, 2020, at 9:22 AM, John Ralls wrote:
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > I found that late yesterda
