Beyond 2.6 (was:Re: Gnucash 2.5/6)

Geert Janssens janssens-geert at
Fri Feb 8 11:08:03 EST 2013

On 08-02-13 16:20, John Ralls wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:09 AM, Derek Atkins <warlord at MIT.EDU> wrote:
>> Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at> writes:
>>> Forgot to mention: Gtk3 was indeed not on the agenda for 2.6. 2.6 is
>>> only meant to be *ready* to be migrated. This means getting rid of all
>>> the deprecated gtk symbols. Other than the register this is done. So
>>> the register rewrite is actually important for this goal, whether we
>>> use the GtkTreeView approach or the libgnome->cairo route.
>> Personnaly I'd rather see us move to Qt instead of Gtk3 when that
>> decision has to be made.  My reasoning is that I think the Gtk
>> developers have lost sight of their target audience, and as a result
>> keep removing features that are vital.  It's too much of a loose
>> firehose, and IMHO shouldn't be supported anymore.  Indeed, for my next
>> desktop re-install I plan to move away from a Gnome desktop and over to
>> XFCE..
>> Note that this has nothing to do with the 2.6 release, but it's
>> something we should think about when contemplating a move to gtk3.
> I agree completely, with the additional comment that we should consider wxWidgets as well.
> However, we should make that decision sooner rather than later: If we're going to drop Gtk, then we should be using C++ and Boost rather than GObject and GLib for backend work.
> Regards,
> John Ralls
I did express my interest in Qt before in mails to the list.

But when you also want to switch to C++ and Boost, to me that sounds 
more or less like a complete rewrite of GnuCash. We've had this 
conversation before, and more or less came to the conclusion we don't 
have enough man power to do that.

Unless such rewrite can be done in baby steps, spread over several 
releases, say like one module at the time ? Is such a segmentation 
possible/practical ?


More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list