Release 5.0.2?

[Łukasz Wojniłowicz]

I would make it 5.0.2. I know that underlying code changed much but we offer 
no really new feature with 5.1. Besides we'll not be offering 5.0.1 and 5.1 
simultaneously, so the version numbering makes little difference to the end 
user.

Cheers
Łukasz

Dnia poniedziałek, 13 sierpnia 2018 22:09:44 CEST Thomas Baumgart pisze:
> Jack,
> 
> On Montag, 13. August 2018 17:39:37 CEST Jack wrote:
> > I'm all in favor of making a 5.0.2 release, with some questions.
> 
> same here, though I would not want to base it off the 5.0 branch but rather
> call it 5.1 and branch if of off master. The only thing we need to make
> sure is that all fixes that went into the 5.0 branch are also applied to
> master before we make a release.
> > Will this include Windows and MacOS versions?  As far as I know,
> > Windows build now succeeds - but I thought there was one particular
> > feature which was not working, pending an update of one of the required
> > libraries.  Was that encryption?  Is that now working?
> > 
> > Regarding MacOS, there was a thread on the users list about problems
> > with library paths and plugins not being found.  I can't tell whether
> > there might really be a problem with the package, or if it is a problem
> > local to the poster's setup.  It would probably be good to resolve this
> > before a release.
> 
> Both windows and macos builds are only available on the master branch, hence
> my request for a 5.1 release.
> > Is there any hope of fixing the bug where an import (ofx in my case) of
> > an investment account does not remember the brokerage account to use,
> > and always prompts for it.  I believe this is a regression from 4.8.  I
> > thought I had opened a bug for this, but I now see six bugs related to
> > brokerage accounts, but not this specific one.  I'm pretty sure I've at
> > least mentioned this on the mailing list more than once, but of course
> > I now can't find any of those messages.  I'll be glad to file a new bug
> > (later today) but am still interested in how difficult this would be to
> > fix, and whether it might get included in 5.0.2.
> 
> I wanted to get this fixed but a) did not find the time and b) got
> distracted by other stuff. It would be very nice to have some sample files
> to reproduce the problem so that it is easier to fix. Maybe, such files
> already exist and I am not aware of them. If not, it would make things a
> lot easier.
> 
> Opinions? Suggestions?