Confusion about use of G2

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 01:08:37PM -0400, Josh Sled wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 16:59 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> >         I'm hoping someone can clarify for me a confusion about the
> > state of the G2 branch.  My understanding was basically that G2 was
> > feature-frozen like an "rc" kernel - "get what's there working" -
> > "bug-fixes only" - whatever you want to call it.
> 
> That's more or less my understanding, but it's an informal one, true.
> The goal is strictly and specifically to get gnucash working with
> as-close-to-feature parity with 1.8 under gtk/gnome2.  That's taken some
> interesting twists (gog, gconf), but those are basically in support of
> the above.
> 
> We need to get to a G2-supporting release as quickly as possible.
> 
> 
> > patches a LONG time ago (my fault).  If G2 is a "bug-fix-only" branch,
> > then it shouldn't slow me down so much to keep my patches fresh
> > against G2.
> 
> Well, with respect to the scope of commits, it's not exactly a
> "bug-fix-only" branch, but it's not a "dev" branch either.  There's some
> larger-than-a-bug-fix work to be done; neither QOF-pullout nor
> register-rewrite-in-gtk would be on my draft of that change-list,
> though.

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.

-chris

> 
> ...jsled
> -- 
> http://asynchronous.org/ - `a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo ${a}@${b}`