Backport or not ?
janssens-geert at telenet.be
Fri Jun 22 04:41:42 EDT 2012
Thanks all for the feedback.
On 22-06-12 09:46, John Ralls wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2012, at 8:09 AM, David Carlson<carlson.dl at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, exactly. That's Geert's point.
> John Ralls
I wasn't very awake apparently yesterday when I wrote my first message.
David's mail triggered me to actually *test* how 2.4.10 would react on
the new data format:
- It opens the file without any warning
- The scheduled transaction is missing the parameter (weekly adjust)
- But if you don't change the scheduled transaction, the parameter won't
get lost either: reopening the file again in trunk shows the parameter
is still saved.
- Back to 2.4.10: when exiting the application, it spews a few assertion
failures in g_hash_for_each:
CRIT <GLib> g_hash_table_foreach: assertion `version ==
hash_table->version' failed (3 times)
- Trying to modify or create a scheduled transaction in 2.4.10 with the
new data fails with a vague error that the database transaction failed.
> 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.
I can see how that rule is useful for new features, but I think it
doesn't make sense for a bugfix. GnuCash is supposed to save that
parameter. The fact that it doesn't is a bug, reported against 2.4.10.
Also given that
- 2.4.10 opens the new format just fine (except for an assertion when
- 2.4.10 doesn't lose data (it ignores the parameter, but it's still
there and it prevents the user from doing data destroying actions)
I'm pretty tempted to backport this as is.
The only useful addition I can think of would be a sensible warning,
instead of the vague error.
More information about the gnucash-devel