Clarification of Account Compatibility Check

[Clayton Carter]

The announcement for GC 2.0.4 states that it now features a `Correct account
compatibility check with top level account.'  I'm currently using 2.0.2 and
I'm wondering if this bugfix would break my account tree.

I setup several top-level accounts, for instance: personal, business1 and
business2.  Under each of those accounts I then created subaccounts to
manage the assets, liabilities, expenses and income of each.  These
businesses are micro-scale and are sometimes indistinguishable from hobbies,
but they are businesses nonetheless and I wanted to be able to represent
this with separate account trees (to keep most transactions separate;
representing the business aspect) that could still support transactions
between each venture (representing the `hobby' aspect).  As an example, when
I buy bags for packaging, the payment is made from my personal checking
account, but the expense is split between the two business units.

Setting this up was a bit of a pain because the program would let me create
and use the subaccounts with types different than the parent account, but it
would warn me about needing to change the types of all of the accounts in
the tree when I attempted to edit an account (say, if I tried to rename it
or turn off the `placeholder' property).

So, does this statement about `Correct account compatibility check' mean
that the behavior I exploited in creating all of my account tree is now
`fixed'?  If so, are there any plans to turn the compatibility check into a
warning rather than a dictate?  Or perhaps a feature added whereby top level
accounts could be `type-less' and placeholder only, thereby allowing this
kind of categorization.  Assuming the worst (for me), does anyone have any
suggestions for handling the accounts of several semi-separate, semi-related
ventures?


Clayton

PS - If there's interest in the warning/dictate or typeless top level
accounts, I will gladly create an enhancement bug report.