Gnucash wiki

[John Ralls]

> On May 19, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Chris Good <chris.good at ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 18:52:27 +0500
>> From: "David T." <sunfish62 at yahoo.com>
>> To: Geert Janssens <geert.gnucash at kobaltwit.be>
>> Cc: Buddha Buck <blaisepascal at gmail.com>, gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
>> Subject: Re: Gnucash wiki
>> Message-ID: <0F82A5F6-D023-4687-A2F4-D7C3A3C6CD5B at yahoo.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>> 
> ...
> The use of suggested categories & templates sounds good to me, if some-one
> has the time to do it.
> 
> FixMe may be a better category than CanSomeoneElseLookAtThisPlease.
> 
> I'm not sure dropping pages is a good thing. While reducing noise when
> searching is good, sometimes historical info is very useful to those without
> a long GnuCash involvement.
> What is considered an obsolete announcement - pre 2.4 or even older? A
> consensus of obsolete would be helpful.
> 
> Geert, are the README pages you refer to mostly the ones for various
> versions of MacOSX? I've no idea what versions of OSX are considered
> obsolete.
> 
> I too have been confused by https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Concept_of_Lots
> but there is a lot of good info and many useful possible future
> enhancements.
> If others think it worthwhile, I'll add some comments to things that may be
> useful but are apparently not currently implemented. I investigated anything
> I was unsure about when I was documenting Lots for the Guide.
> 
> I agree that information that is available elsewhere, can be linked to or
> dropped from the wiki, while being very careful not to lose anything
> possibly valuable.
> 
> Ooo... - I found http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Eclipse while searching the
> wiki for info re Templates. Maybe this will spur me to move to Eclipse which
> I have been putting off due to not wanting to learn yet another IDE.

Searching "announcement*" produces pages announcing 1.9.0 through 2.2.1  I think it would be safe to delete the lot of them, but I suppose we could attach a template that flags them as "ancient history".

*readme* search indeed turns up the OSX Readme pages that aren't quite as old, the most recent being for 2.4.7, but I'd think removing them would be safe too.  The content is duplicated in a file in the respective disk images so the information will still be available to anyone who actually needs it.

Regards,
John Ralls