Re: Patch for serious bug in LedgerSMB 1.2.16

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:14 AM, David F. Skoll <..hidden..> wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> There are problems with that too.  One can't just apply a fix where
>> replication is at work in a database because that can screw up the
>> replication.  Because we want to offer a replication-friendly
>> environment, automatic application of fixes is a bit problematic.
>
> Hmm, ok.
>
> Still... when you upgrade versions, it's reasonable to expect that
> there might be a schema change (for other reasons, not just fixes) and
> that you should take that into account.

We really try to make sure that any real schema changes occur between
stable branches.

>
> I really believe that making it a policy that "Upgrades might require
> schema changes; take appropriate action" is the way to go.

Maybe a separate file which documents fixes?

BTW, these aren't just non-standard workflows.  From an accounting
perspective, they are wrong workflows because they break auditability.
 Technically, you aren't supposed to ever change a posted invoice.
Ever.....  (We turn off this ability in new dbs by default too.)
Granted having the old invoice go "poof" and disappear is bad under
any circumstance, but it is one of those cases where you have to take
the gun out of the holster and turn the safety off before it will
shoot you in the foot.

Now, if something happened during a GAAP-compliant workflow, we would
have to look at making an exception to this policy.  This is not the
case in this specific instance.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers