Bug 631789 update

[Thomas Bullock]

Geert,

Thanks for these remarks.  Since I am interested mainly in documentation and its accuracy, your bringing bugs to the list are useful to me.  I will try to follow up on any that are listed, especially those that I see as having a documentation impact.

Tom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geert Janssens [mailto:janssens-geert at telenet.be]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:09 AM
> To: Thomas Bullock
> Cc: gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> Subject: Re: Bug 631789 update
> 
> On Wednesday 20 October 2010, Thomas Bullock wrote:
> > Geert,
> >
> > Thanks for pointing out that my remarks should be part of bug.
> Following
> >  your recommendation, I have added an additional comment to that
> bug.
> >
> Thanks for the comments.
> 
> > How does a  bug update get added automatically to the developer's
> list?  Or
> >  does it?  Do changes to a bug discussion go only to those
> subscribing to
> >  the bug?
> >
> The list is not automatically informed of updates. People interested
> in
> further discussion on this topic should subscribe to the bug. I think
> that is
> ok. If more people on the list had remarks they would have made those
> by now.
> 
> Also by my announcement of the existence of the bug, others still
> interested
> can go over there and subscribe.
> 
> The reason I suggest to follow up on the bug, is that it's better to
> keep
> comments in one place. If there's a bug report that's the preferred
> place as
> it's easier to manage feature requests from there.
> 
> Sometimes I come across a bug report that needs more input than it is
> getting.
> I such cases I sometimes announce the existence of that bug on the
> devel list
> and ask for more input. Usually some of the other devs and list
> followers will
> then add there comments to the bug in bugzilla.
> 
> That's roughly how these two communication channels interact for me.
> 
> Geert
> 
> > Tom
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Geert Janssens [mailto:janssens-geert at telenet.be]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:16 AM
> > > To: gnucash-devel at gnucash.org; Thomas Bullock
> > > Subject: Re: Summary bar description (was: Patch for guide file
> > > "ch_basics.xml")
> > >
> > > On Saturday 16 October 2010, Tom Bullock wrote:
> > > >   Geert and Juergen,
> > > >
> > > > Earlier exchanges stated:
> > > > > >  "Assets" is the sum of all accounts of types Bank, Cash,
> Asset,
> > >
> > > Stock,
> > >
> > > > > > Mutual Fund, Credit Card, Liability, A/Payable and
> A/Receivable,
> > > > > > obviously taking the proper sign into account. Calling this
> > >
> > > "Assets"
> > >
> > > > > > would indeed be confusing at least.
> > > >
> > > > Just netting (offsetting credits [liabilities] against debits
> > >
> > > [assets]
> > >
> > > > from the balance sheet) these together gives "Net Assets", not
> net
> > > > worth.  Net worth is a duration concept, meaning activity over
> time.
> > >
> > > It
> > >
> > > > refers to the use of assets to generate income while incurring
> > >
> > > expenses
> > >
> > > > to do that.  Net Assets is a point-in-time concept and excludes
> any
> > > > income statement activity.
> > > >
> > > > Given what has been said to this point, the most accurate term I
> > >
> > > have
> > >
> > > > seen is "net assets" for the place where a better name is
> needed.
> > >
> > > This very same issue has recently been reported in a bug:
> > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=631789
> > >
> > > I have added references there to this thread.
> > >
> > > I don't speak English accounting language fluently, so I have to
> > > accept
> > > whatever others agree upon here. I would suggest to continue any
> > > further
> > > discussion on this description on the bug report.
> > >
> > > Geert
> >