Confusion about use of G2

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 02:42:54PM -0400, Josh Sled wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 14:28 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> > Right. I thought that the "larger-than-a-bug-fix" work was basically
> > compensating for obsolete dependencies.  I agree about
> > register-rewrite.  Could you explain what you consider to be
> > QOF-pullout?  I mean, how much QOF work is needed to get a
> > G2-supporting release ASAP?  This stuff isn't motivated in
> > GNOME2_STATUS.
> 
> Gnucash currently depends on a copy of QOF which was birthed inside 
> gnucash itself.  QOF should become an independent library, which gnucash
> then depends on as any other caller.  The extrication of QOF involves
> changing some facilities at the border of the two.
> 
> A good example is the gnc-trace.c-defined logging and module stuff,
> which is presently gnucash-specific, but really should be part of QOF.
> 
> I'm sure that I'm not sure about all of the details of it; perhaps Neil
> can breifly summarize what's left.  I don't believe that it relates to
> the G2 port at all.

Then why is it happening in the G2 branch?!!  I want to base my
patches on the tree that will only be moving toward a
feature-comparable G2 release, not a tree that is moving toward a QOF
factoring.

How would David like it if I were doing the register rewrite in the
tree he was trying to release?  How is QOF pullout any different?

-chris