Re: Any objections to including the database schema unique id patch?

[David Tangye <..hidden..>]

On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 11:33 +1000, Gavin Carr wrote:

> Is there value in trying to defer non-critical schema changes for a
> certain period of time while ledger-smb gets up and running? 
Methinks it is way up, and running fast, looking at the amount of code
changes over the past hours and days.

> I guess
> I'm wondering whether diverging the schema too quickly from SL 
> becomes a barrier to trying out/adopting L-SMB? If I as an SL user
> know that I can just drop the L-SMB code base on top of my existing
> schema, try it out for a few days/weeks - even try them both out 
> side by side for a while -
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that LedgerSMB is beyond
that point already.

>  then that makes the migration process
> significantly less risky for me, particularly if I'm non-technical
> and/or conservative/risk-averse (i.e. accountants ;-) ).

dum-de-dum 'Star trekkin' across the universe; ever goin' forward, we
cannot find reverse' :-)