Backport or not ?

[David Carlson]

Gentlemen,

What would Releases 2.4.10 and previous do if they encounter an unfamiliar 
format?  Do they throw an error that the file needs an updated program?  


The answer may help your decision.

David C




________________________________
From: John Ralls <jralls at ceridwen.us>
To: Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be>
Cc: gnucash-devel <gnucash-devel at gnucash.org>
Sent: Thu, June 21, 2012 3:08:43 PM
Subject: Re: Backport or not ?


On Jun 21, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> wrote:

> I have just pushed a fix for bug 67132 [1] 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 ?
> 

I think the rule is that 2.4.11 should be able to read the new format, but 
shouldn't write it, but that seems a bit stupid because it doesn't fix the bug. 
I suppose we could do something with KVP where 2.4.11 writes (and reads) the 
weekend_adjust value to KVP and trunk knows to look there, but it would be an 
ugly, complex hack.

Regards,
John Ralls


Regards,
John Ralls




_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel