[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Future of LedgerSMB: Ideas and RFC
- Subject: Re: Future of LedgerSMB: Ideas and RFC
- From: ario <..hidden..>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 23:55:38 +0000
I'm very happily using LSMB in its current version and state and will be
grateful with any improvement or future version.
Thanks for the great work!
It is a really useful engine, as 'the fat controller' would say :)
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 13:53 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> Hi all;
> Many of you may be frustrated at the pace of development of LedgerSMB
> and the fact that 1.3 has not yet been released. Development may
> appear to have slowed. Public discussions become less frequent...
> For the last few years, LedgerSMB has achieved significant growth.
> Some of that growth has come at an organizational cost and for that I
> apologize to the community. Now I have to try to help put the
> organizational stuff back together.
> In reality, far from being quiet, LedgerSMB 1.3 has had a huge amount
> of commissioned work done on it, not only for the core system (where
> the customer/vendor management, reconciliation, and payment interfaces
> have been completely rewritten) but also in areas of addons for fixed
> asset handling, template transactions, so forth. We have eliminated a
> lot of performance bottlenecks for larger databases, and provided a
> much higher level of security than previous versions. This has been a
> very ambitious project and we are much better off for it.
> I would like to propose a few specific directional approaches and get
> feedback from the community before proceeding.
> I think the major priorities at this point need to be:
> 1) Getting 1.3 out the door.
> 2) Focusing heavily on community building
> 3) Trying to build partnerships with other open source business
> projects (perhaps GNU Med and others?)
> To this end I would like to tentatively suggest the following:
> The first is a regular beta release schedule for 1.3... Maybe every
> other Tuesday?
> There are some committed fixes for 1.2 which have not made it into a
> release. I would like to release this as soon as possible. However,
> given the fact that bug reports have slowed, I think it is likely that
> it is not likely that 1.2 will see another release absent developing
> problems like issues caused by new versions of Perl.
> I'd also like to encourage anyone who is interested in contributing to
> start looking heavily at 1.3. This is a place where you can earn a
> name in the CONTRIBUTORS file, or possibly even commit privileges.
> But in addition I would like to see what the community thinks. What
> do you think we need to do to pull things back together and bring the
> project to the next level?
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
> What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
> Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
> next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
> developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
> Ledger-smb-users mailing list