Uncommitted release 2.4 x documentation

David T. sunfish62 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 20 00:18:56 EST 2013


I looked at 693156 and commented on it. For future reference, laundry list bugs are (at least for me) harder to digest and manage. If you look at my reply, you’ll see why. There’s some good things, some bad ones, and it’s challenging to sort through them. And it’s tough to know how to move forward on the bug as a whole…

With 699430, I’d suggest pooling your activities with those of 633590, and put any report descriptions into the wiki location listed there. As the person who put some effort into documenting reports, I believe that gathering everything into the wiki before migrating them into the Concepts guide is the path of greatest success.

David T.

On Nov 19, 2013, at 4:23 PM, David Carlson <carlson.dl at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 11/19/2013 5:58 PM, David Carlson wrote:
>> On 11/19/2013 5:07 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:45 PM, David Carlson <carlson.dl at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Several months ago I and a couple of other non-developers submitted some
>>>> documentation updates via bugzilla that never got committed to the 2.4
>>>> documentation.  Now it is pointless to commit them to 2.4 series, but
>>>> they may still apply to release 2.6.  How can we get them into the system?
>>> The open documentation patches are
>>> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635386
>>> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684709
>>> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684719
>>> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=693493
>>> All of the patches on them are submitted by Frank Ellenberger and Christian Marchi, both of whom have commit. The second one has an attachment you wrote, but it's a plain text draft, not a patch.
>>> Do you have the bug numbers you're referring to?
>>> Regards,
>>> John Ralls
>> I deliberately used the word 'update' rather than the word 'patch'
>> because I am not conversant with the code necessary to convert plain
>> text into a patch.  I am most comfortable using simple text editors or
>> Open Office type word processors.
>> A quick search brought up only 
>> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=693156
>> That one was not well constructed, but I considered it to be a valid
>> suggestion at the time.
>> Bug 684709 includes some discussion from both myself and David T about
>> our frustration with the process.  I think the documentation topic of
>> that bug report has been committed, by the way, unless it has not yet
>> made it through all the necessary steps.
>> Also, I think the wiki info about how to submit documentation
>> suggestions was clarified after Bug 684709 was submitted.
>> I thought that I had submitted two or three more documentation requests
>> after that which did not appear in my search.  If I find them, I will
>> let you know.
>> David C
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnucash-devel mailing list
>> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
> I have found two others. 
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=699430
> is marked as closed, but the content only appears in the nightly build
> of the help manual.  I presume that it will be transferred to release
> 2.6 documentation.
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=633590
> seems to be a work in progress that has gotten stalled.  That covers an
> area that is seriously deficient in the documentation and imho it should
> be revived and given a very high priority.
> <0xDC7C8BF3.asc>_______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list