r20438 - gnucash/trunk/src/app-utils - [PATCH 4/4] Bug #615168: N_ in the root module

[Phil Longstaff]

Well, this particular checkin (N_ in the root module), or the ones fixing bugs 
(from Andy Wingo) looked to me like they could be applied to 2.4.  They wouldn't 
need to since they don't fix user-visible bugs.

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 2.6 being 
reserved for a major change (e.g. Gtk/Gnome 3 support)?  I'd have to look back 
over the 2.2.X release notices to see what kinds of change were allowed in that 
series of releases.

 Phil
---------
I used to be a hypochondriac AND a kleptomaniac. So I took something for it.




________________________________
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 #615168: N_ 
in the root module

On maandag 21 maart 2011, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> Geert,
> 
> you've just checked in 4 patches.  How should we mark patches which should
> be back-ported to the 2.4 branch?  Should I just pick and choose?
> 
Good question.

I seem to remember the devs used to prefix their commit messages with BP in 
the 2.2.x/trunk period. I found this in the wiki:
http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Development_Process#Changeset_Auditing_Process

In any case the patches I just applied (a complete series of 12 patches) are 
definitely trunk only. They together update the windows build  dependencies to 
allow for Guile 1.8.x. The changes are fairly invasive and may definitely 
bring instability in the build tree. See 
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=621238 for more details about this 
series of patches.

Geert