Re: Future of LedgerSMB: Ideas and RFC

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Luke <..hidden..> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>
>> From other people's reactions I concluded it's not clear enough
>> "what's in it for them". In other words, in what ways does 1.3
>> actually contributes to the goals they may be trying to achieve.
>
> For me, from a usability standpoint, the only thing I *know of* that 1.3 has
> going for it, is that relationship management functionality.
> I have long wanted that, and it would be nice.  The additional security,
> etc., is nice, but for my exact situation, it's not a must-have, since
> everything is limited to a very few maximally trusted people, operating on
> VPNs, on non-public servers.

The payment workflows and reconciliation are also MUCH better.

>
>>> I think the major priorities at this point need to be:
>>> 1)  Getting 1.3 out the door.
>>
>> To me, this means being able to develop using the customers model,
>> differentiating between companies and people. To John Locke this seems
>> to mean the a stable Reconciliation interface. What does this mean to
>> others?
>
> 1.  Installable by the majority.
> 2.  All primary features exposed to users, working without significant bugs
> in standard use cases.

I would agree with both these.  Also upgrade scripts working from 1.2
without significant problems there.


>> probably a good idea to find a mode where releases get only big enough
>> to address a small number of specific issues (and the regular bug
>> fixes) on the point releases. That might satisfy only a small group of
>> current users, but the continued development could easily attract new
>> users too. That would be a net benefit.
>
> Y! E! S!  Exactly that.
>

Question:  How should we look at getting rid of the old code, post 1.3?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers