Confusion about use of G2

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 01:56:07PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker at cox.net>:
> 
> >On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 10:36:59AM -0400, David Hampton wrote:
> >
> >>If what's in the tree is broken and needs to be pulled, and you're
> >>sitting on a "stable complete implementation", then IMHO we clearly
> >>should commit your code.
> >
> >Even though budgeting wasn't a 1.8 feature?
> 
> OFX Direct Connect wasn't a 1.8 feature, either.  ;)
> 
> If what you have is complete and working, solves both your needs and

Well, it meets my needs.  I guess we won't know if it meets other's
needs until they try it and tell us.

> those of Darrin, and doesn't replicate existing APIs, then I think it's
> reasonable to put into G2 now.  E.g., if you haven't combined FreqSpec and
> Recurrence into a single API then no, it's not ready to be committed.

I haven't removed all use of FreqSpec.  Recurrence covers a broader
concept than FreqSpec. (start date)  IMO, Recurrence is what FreqSpec
should've been.  I think Josh agrees.

Converting SX to use Recurrence would make for cleaner code, (IMO) a
nicer GUI, and remove at least 2 bugs(*).  But, I think that's too big
a job for G2 and also too big to block budgets for.  I also think it's
better done incrementally.

Also, it's not naive to think that it really will happen, because the
result would be that some very powerful interaction between SX and
budgeting becomes quite easy.  That's an attractive motivation for
converging FreqSpec and Recurrence, but it's not going to happen in
one shot.

(*) One is illustrated by a failing test case in my tree.  The other
(IIRC) is the inability to define sequence such as "last day of every
month, beginning Sept. 30, 2005."  I'm pretty sure that converting
from FreqSpec to Recurrence is the best and quickest way to fix this
deficiency.  But, I hope that's not required for G2 release.  (I would
call it "known issue.")

> 
> >OTOH, I wouldn't mind comitting the code and then just leaving the
> >menu item off if we decide to release G2 without it.  But, it would be
> >nice to get some more people using it, even if just in alpha.
> 
> If it's working, why hide the feature?

Well, I don't know.  There's no help text on it, yet.  :(

-chris