Re: Looking beyond 1.3: Kernalization and requirements proposals.

[Luke <..hidden..>]

I'm not sure I follow the logic behind this.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to start 2.0 development immediately after 
1.3 stable release?  Trying to make it work within or over the 1.3 
codebase seems like more work, with minimum reward, since alphas of 2.0 
will effectively do the same thing, and you will doubtless recommend not 
using the 2.x style addon on production servers anyway.

I'm probably missing the point.

Luke

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Chris Travers wrote:

> One more interesting idea....
>
> I wonder if it would be helpful to make the core framework for 2.0
> into an addon for 1.3?
>
> This would allow us to:
>
> 1)  Build the core framework (requiring Pg 8.4 for that) as an
> alternative for addon-developers.
> 2)  Rebuild the core financial logic on framework....
> 3)  Rebuild the inventory logic on that framework.....
>
> Then we would have the most used portions of the application ready to go.....
>
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
> ..hidden..
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel