Backport or not ?
janssens-geert at telenet.be
Thu Jun 21 11:20:17 EDT 2012
I have just pushed a fix for bug 67132  where not all parameters of
recurrences were saved to sql.
This fix would probably be very easy to backport to 2.4.x.
However, the patch involves updating the table definition for the
recurrence table (a column is added for the parameter that wasn't
saved). The table format as it is in 2.4.10 is incomplete so it causes
data loss. Fixing it in 2.4.11 would mean that once a datafile is opened
with 2.4.11, it can't be opened with 2.4.10 anymore (due to the
increment in recurrence table version).
Yet the bug was reported against 2.4.10.
So I'm not sure about the proper decision here: backport or not ?
More information about the gnucash-devel