Is there anything *enjoyable* about our development process?

[Neil Williams]

On Sunday 16 October 2005 3:23 pm, Josh Sled wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 11:34 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > This is ALL because the current version control system relies on the
> > final arbiter being a single directory on a single machine:
> > cvs.gnucash.org.
>
> No, it's not.  It's because you're trying to extricate a lot of really
> central code from a large, actively-developing codebase that everyone
> else wants to remain static/stable, and has a different goal for, by
> copying-and-pasting large amounts of code.

Not true. The code has already been released by Linas - all I'm doing is 
desperately trying to keep Gnucash in sync with an EXISTING external library 
and the simplest way of doing that is to complete the spinout.

You make it sound like I'm hijacking gnucash.

> > That is a decentralised model - there is no single arbiter, no single
> > source. It's almost like a branch per developer.
>
> So maybe we need to branch the code for this effort, as has been
> proposed?

There's no point now, I've got the patch ready that will allow G2 to build 
with external QOF. 

But in time for cashutil, which also involves structural changes to the 
codebase, this would be useful. QOF spinout is required before cashutil can 
be merged into the gnucash tree.

-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/attachments/20051016/d60c587a/attachment.bin