gnucash c++

Geert Janssens janssens-geert at
Thu Aug 7 08:54:09 EDT 2014

On Wednesday 06 August 2014 19:15:35 John Ralls wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 06 August 2014 16:16:17 Aaron Laws wrote:
> >> I tried to follow the directions at
> >>, but I
> >> couldn't
> >> find a Bugzilla issue encapsulating the Great C++ Refactor. Should
> >> I
> >> create one so there is a place to put patches?
> >> 
> >> I learned on IRC that it is generally a goal not to have C++
> >> keywords
> >> in the Gnucash code base, and this patch is along those ends. I
> >> think
> >> I got all the C++11 keywords that would interfere with a C++11
> >> compile. If this is an inappropriate patch to submit, please let me
> >> know. After my signature, you can find the patch prepared using
> >> `git
> >> format-patch` (as specified in
> >> Also, I followed the
> >> advice of ("All
> >> development should target the *master* branch."). Please let me
> >> know
> >> if anything looks amiss (the amount of context, using unified diff
> >> format, perhaps I should be attaching instead of in-line quotation,
> >> etc.). Thanks!
> >> 
> >> In Christ,
> > 
> > Hi Aaron,
> > 
> > Thank you for your patch. I haven't tested it yet but IMO the
> > intention is correct.
> > 
> > As for bugzilla: you can create a new bugreport and attach your
> > patch there. Attaching it to a mailing list message risks that it
> > gets lost in the midst of the ongoing discussions. 'git format-
> > patch' is perfectly fine as format.
> > 
> > As for the "All development should target the *master* branch", we
> > should change this. That's advice from the svn era. In git bugfixes
> > should target the *maint* branch. New features and enhancements
> > should target *master*.
> I clarified
> res a bit and cleared out all of the old stuff about backports and
> audits. I'm not quite satisfied with it, so I'll let it percolate in
> my head for a day or two and have another go. If someone else has
> some thoughts, by all means dive in.
I altered some more parts that still wrongly suggested all bugfix development should go on 
master. But I still welcome more improvements and clarifications.

> Let's not have a generic "Convert GnuCash to C++" bug that will
> accumulate a zillion patches and a zillion comments. That will just
> become a headache. If you (Aaron) would rather attach the patch to a
> bug, make it "Remove C++11/14 Keywords"or something, but I'm
> perfectly happy using Github pull requests for C++ if that's more
> convenient. I don't really see that patch as a bug-fix; it's not a
> problem with maint that it doesn't compile in C++. OTOH, *not*
> applying it to maint will make it harder to merge into master sooner
> than otherwise, so I'm not opposed to it either as long as it passes
> `make distcheck`.
Fully agreed. It may be better to apply this one against maint in the hopes it will result in 
simple merges for a while longer. It has to pass make distcheck of course.


More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list