On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 12:56 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 08:11:14PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > > On Friday 29 December 2006 19:48, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > Note that option (3) depends on upstream's ability to fix the problem > > > quickly, *and* is likely to be error prone. If our priority is the > > > *release*, then options (1) and (2) are the best choices. > > > I miss an analysis of what other packages are involved in this plan. If > > only GnuCash is involved that'd make the lower ranked options more of an > > option than if the number of affected packages is unknown or expected to > > be large. > > The number of affected packages is unknown. AFAIK, prior to the bug being > filed on gnucash it was assumed to be zero. I thought Josselin said that there had been several other affected programs, and that changes had been made to the syntax to correspond.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part