On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 01:56 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Now, if you don't provide us with the necessary data, we won't be able > to fix the regression it introduces in gnucash. There are clearly two plausible solutions to the underlying problem: 1. Change gnucash to conform to the new behavior of glib, 2. Change glib to conform to the existing expectations of gnucash. I am not at all sure which is the right solution. (1) has the advantage of being more correct, in the abstract. On the other hand, I am not sure enough of the details to be sure that (1) won't hose users with existing files around. (2) has the disadvantage of needing to be repeated over and over. For things like this, it is really gnucash upstream that should make the decision. I will ask them what they think is the best solution. My guess is that they will prefer (1) if possible, but I cannot be sure. I would be happy to put you in touch with them if that matters to you. However, while I'm happy to send mail to upstream right away, I am not going to spend much energy on fixing this issue before release unless the release team informs me that the glib in question needs to be pushed in through the freeze. If they do so, I hope they will also allow a corresponding fix to gnucash, if that turns out to be the Right Thing. Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part