Re: r20438 - gnucash/trunk/src/app-utils - [PATCH 4/4] Bug #615168: N_ in the root module
Christian Stimming (mobil)
stimming at tuhh.de
Wed Mar 23 07:33:30 EDT 2011
Phil Longstaff <plongstaff at rogers.com> schrieb:
>Well, this particular checkin (N_ in the root module), or the ones
>(from Andy Wingo) looked to me like they could be applied to 2.4.
Unfortunately this is not true. Those patches crash with guile 1.6. I explained that in the bugzilla entry. Hence they must not be backported.
>Brings up the question of whether the 2.4.X releases are simply bug
>fixes or can
>new smaller bits of functionality and other change be introduced, with
>reserved for a major change (e.g. Gtk/Gnome 3 support)? I'd have to
>over the 2.2.X release notices to see what kinds of change were allowed
>series of releases.
>I used to be a hypochondriac AND a kleptomaniac. So I took something
>From: Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be>
>To: gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
>Cc: Phil Longstaff <plongstaff at rogers.com>
>Sent: Mon, March 21, 2011 11:45:19 AM
>Subject: Re: r20438 - gnucash/trunk/src/app-utils - [PATCH 4/4] Bug
>in the root module
>On maandag 21 maart 2011, Phil Longstaff wrote:
>> you've just checked in 4 patches. How should we mark patches which
>> be back-ported to the 2.4 branch? Should I just pick and choose?
>I seem to remember the devs used to prefix their commit messages with
>the 2.2.x/trunk period. I found this in the wiki:
>In any case the patches I just applied (a complete series of 12
>definitely trunk only. They together update the windows build
>allow for Guile 1.8.x. The changes are fairly invasive and may
>bring instability in the build tree. See
>https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=621238 for more details
>series of patches.
>gnucash-devel mailing list
>gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
Sent from mobile.
More information about the gnucash-devel