From: Tim L. <guy...@gm...> - 2013-02-05 23:27:59
|
Sorry, my reasoning was that most people would only have one tree, and for them, there would be very little impact. The report options would just stay with that one tree. It was raised as a problem by the original reporter. It also causes problems when things in the options (like person IDs, references to notes, or specific filters) are carried across to trees where those things do not exist (we have had bugs about that). There was a recent discussion about multiple trees, and it was pointed out that in most cases, the effort in maintaining one's family history would be reduced by only maintaining one tree. For the very few people who have more than one tree, having settings carry forward from one tree to another is likely to be a problem, because the setting would be relevant to the old tree not the new one. Of course with any change there are always a few people who are inconvenienced by the change, and I really appreciate that they will find it a nuisance. However, I think that this change will benefit the majority of the use cases. Making a special case for Narrative Web, or adding additional code to copy forward choices from some previous tree (and there would need to be a choice as to which tree was copied from) would make the code much more complicated, with little benefit in the majority of cases, just an increase in maintenance load. The new reports options file is automatically created as necessary when reports are generated from the new tree. Again apologies for the inconvenience, but I think there are good reasons to make this change. Regards, Tim. -- View this message in context: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/report-options-location-recreation-relative-etc-tp4658582p4658583.html Sent from the GRAMPS - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |