Register2

[Geert Janssens]

On Tuesday 22 October 2013 12:49:57 John Ralls wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> wrote:
> > I do encourage you to get used to svn/git, and as John proposes,
> > clone the gnucash repository on github. I'm not sure what would be
> > the best starting point for a branch, r23314 (which you would
> > revert immediately in your next commit), or r23313, which doesn't
> > need any reverting. Both will cause some rebasing/merging issues
> > eventually. Perhaps John has a better idea.
> > 
> > In any case, it would be good if you regularly push your development
> > branch in your github clone so other developers can follow your
> > progress.
> 
> On Oct 22, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Christian Stimming <christian at cstimming.de> wrote:
> > Just removing the code will almost surely introduce plenty of
> > merging errors the next time any of us or you try to merge
> > non-trivial changes from gnucash SVN. Basically, if you remove the
> > code, it means you are going to maintain a private branch of
> > gnucash SVN, not in any git or svn management, but just by keeping
> > the changed files on your local harddisk. Out of the many available
> > options of maintaining a separate branch (be it git somewhere or
> > svn somewhere or whatever), this one is definitely the worst
> > choice. I'd strongly suggest to create a configure switch instead,
> > and keeping almost all code in SVN as well.
> Looks like Geert reverted the reversion patch.
> 
> I was going to suggest that Robert branch after the reversion patch
> and immediately revert it in his branch:
>   git revert 22eff28
> Then he can rebase from trunk periodically
>   git rebase trunk reg-2-branch
> to prevent bit-rot on his branch. I do this on my private feature
> branches, it works quite well.
> 
That approach is fine with me as well, but wouldn't that result in more merge conflicts as 
time goes by ?

Hmm, I'll just stop reverting reversals and let Robert choose what he prefers.

Geert