Hi,
I'm in favor of this.
1- The MC should be part of LedgerSMB, not something we promote only on a need basis.
2- It would get pulled in the distribution stream, contributing to marketing of our work. Having apt for the standard and GitHub for MC isn't appealing to users.
3- We are very few, so removing burdens and freeing time to develop quicker should be the goal every time.
Yves Lavoie, FIC, ing. Président Gestion Automatisée Yves Lavoie inc. |
5620, rue Louis-Hémon
Sorel-Tracy, Québec J3R 4Y3
Tel: 514-246-7261
Sorel-Tracy, Québec J3R 4Y3
Tel: 514-246-7261
David put forward that having the MC (multi-currency) branch merged to master gets a maintenance burden off my shoulders (which it indeed will). In addition to that, merging to master early provides for a (hopefully) long enough period to shake out any of the problems that it may cause.Hi,Two weeks ago, when he was in Europe, David sat down with me to discuss a number of items. Some of those will come later. There was one major issue we discussed though and I want to bring our proposal forward here.Additionally, his idea is that if this code is on master, it becomes our collective problem to create a data migration strategy to MC, whereas currently it's probably mostly my problem...While I'm not very much in favor of throwing up roadblocks for releases, even if they're far in the future. However, I must admit that if there are others in favor of moving MC to master so we have it for 1.6, getting rid of the maintenance burden (however small) does seem attractive.Comments?PS: Before anybody merges this branch: I need to convert the schema changes I did to the general approach as per sql/changes/ (which is pre-dated by the MC branch).
--