Gramps : Mantis since 3 years

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Gramps : Mantis since 3 years

genearic genearic

Hello,

Sorry I address here.
But is it possible to have a response to cases reassembled under Mantis
older than 3 years please?
I'd love to be able to migrate my data to Gramps but until these issues
are resolved I get stuck in my genealogy.

https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=4405
https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=4412
https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5033
https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=6970
https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=6975
https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5034
https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5094
https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5042

Best Regards,





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gramps : Mantis since 3 years

Paul Franklin-5
On 8/30/14, Genearic <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> Sorry I address here.
> But is it possible to have a response to cases reassembled under Mantis
> older than 3 years please?
> I'd love to be able to migrate my data to Gramps but until these issues
> are resolved I get stuck in my genealogy.
>
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=4405
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=4412
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5033
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=6970
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=6975
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5034
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5094
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5042

As I recall, from reading those bugs long ago, you generate
your own personal, individualized GEDCOM, which does not
follow the GEDCOM standard.

So you want us to alter gramps so that it copes with your
personalized GEDCOM.  To benefit you, alone.

Perhaps that is why such "bugs" have been ignored.

If you ever altered whatever program you wrote to make
the incorrect GEDCOM, so that it makes correct GEDCOM
instead, then I imagine you would be able have gramps
read it in.  But that is something you don't want to do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gramps : Mantis since 3 years

genearic genearic
I do not understand the severe judgment against me.
If I understand the draft Gramps is to meet, among others, faithfully the GEDCOM standard.
Or use I found many errors and anomalies.
Certainly other programs do not go that far in the use of GEDCOM standard, but is that a reason not to give negative result even with defects that you are referred.



2014-08-30 19:44 GMT+02:00 Paul Franklin <[hidden email]>:
On 8/30/14, Genearic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Sorry I address here.
> But is it possible to have a response to cases reassembled under Mantis
> older than 3 years please?
> I'd love to be able to migrate my data to Gramps but until these issues
> are resolved I get stuck in my genealogy.
>
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=4405
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=4412
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5033
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=6970
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=6975
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5034
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5094
> https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5042

As I recall, from reading those bugs long ago, you generate
your own personal, individualized GEDCOM, which does not
follow the GEDCOM standard.

So you want us to alter gramps so that it copes with your
personalized GEDCOM.  To benefit you, alone.

Perhaps that is why such "bugs" have been ignored.

If you ever altered whatever program you wrote to make
the incorrect GEDCOM, so that it makes correct GEDCOM
instead, then I imagine you would be able have gramps
read it in.  But that is something you don't want to do.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gramps : Mantis since 3 years

jerome
In reply to this post by genearic genearic
Hello,

I made some comments on these bug reports, in the past!

#4405 looks like a feature request.
I attached a simple patch for exporting  AGE, AGE FATHER, AGE MOTHER attributes to Gedcom. I was not able to go further because gedcom does not use EVENT as primary record. ie, I do not want to make too many exceptions for something which sounds wrong by design... Gedcom is person centric, so age of the individual at this event. What about family design? What should be the main location for AGE into gedcom file format?

#4412 is an other feature request: gedcom extension, 
supporting some custom sequences/tags.

#5033 is maybe pending because it sounds like a mixture between a feature request without expected way and a missing support. Otherwise, to write description in french is maybe not a good idea... 

If current gedcom handler can parse:

1 MARR
2 TYPE Married

and not:

1 MARR
2 TYPE Unmarried

right?

and/or maybe with the french translation too?

#6970 : acknowledged!

Description looks complete and valid.
There is a test case sample.

Maybe manpower is just missing?

#6975 
confusing!
Can you reproduce it?

#5034 
As far I know gedcom never supported ordering for marriage?
Or like the children order into a family, the first record is the first one, the second is the second one ...etc ... 

Sure, you can have fun with gedcom specification(!)
Fortunatly, Bettergedcom FHISO, or GedcomX aim to get ride of these issues...

I never complained about #2710 which was generated 5 years ago!

#5094 is an other feature request with major change on gedcom handling.
Maybe the 'gedcom extensions' addon is more designed for such request?


You can replace (supersede) some sections of the current gedcom file format handling.

#5042
Once more it looks like a feature request!
Gramps does not use gedcom as internal database.
Data are imported and exported.
You want to store data into a specific location into gedcom file format.

Like for EVENt, gedcom does not store PLACe as a primary record.
This means many duplicate records, we cannot properly share records and data.

Gramps can share event like residence.
Why should gramps break this feature by going back (down?), just for only exporting ADDRess linked with an individual? The ADDRess and PLACe handling were always confusing into gedcom (5.3, 5.4, 5.5) and their person centric concepts. Also, remember that a family (spouse, children, parents) can also share the same residence or events.

ADDRess tag from gedcom sounds neither good for an addresses book nor a real help for genealogy (and privacy)! 

Finally, what should be done with old deprecated addresses stored into gedcom files? How to fix them? Are they still valid? Should we put evidences on them?
I guess vCard file format is rather designed for storing addresses than gedcom fiel format...


Maybe except for #6970 
    I do not know what should be done for them, on next months!!!


Best Regards,

Jérôme


Le sam. 30 août 2014 at 18:42, Genearic <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hello, Sorry I address here. But is it possible to have a response to cases reassembled under Mantis older than 3 years please? I'd love to be able to migrate my data to Gramps but until these issues are resolved I get stuck in my genealogy. https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=4405 https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=4412 https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5033 https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=6970 https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=6975 https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5034 https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5094 https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5042 Best Regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Gramps-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gramps : Mantis since 3 years

enno
Jerome,
> #5033 is maybe pending because it sounds like a mixture between a
> feature request without expected way and a missing support. Otherwise,
> to write description in french is maybe not a good idea...
>
> If current gedcom handler can parse:
>
> 1 MARR
> 2 TYPE Married
This TYPE should not be interpreted, see GEDCOM 5.5.1:

"The value portion given by the TYPE tag is not intended to inform a
computer program
how to process the data, unless there is a list of standardized or
controlled line_value choices
given by the definition of the line value in this standard."

Since there is no line_value specified for MARR, the value must simply
be stored on import, not interpreted in any way. It may sometimes appear
as if it is, because Gramps can be configured to use married as the
default for relationships, but that is just a coincidence. Users can put
anything here in their own language, which is of course not very
portable, but that is indeed a standard problem, not one that can be
solved by us.
> #6970 : acknowledged!
>
> Description looks complete and valid.
> There is a test case sample.
>
> Maybe manpower is just missing?
Probably. I see enough other work, including FHISO :-)

cheers,

Enno


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gramps : Mantis since 3 years

jerome
Enno,


Yes, that's true.

> "unless there is a list of standardized or controlled line_value choices
given by the definition of the line value in this standard."

I really like this section ...
Controlled by what? who? when?

It makes a while since FamilySearch stoped to look at gedcom[1][2]! 

Yes, most translated values were ignored by this too.

Now, I wonder if we set an other 'default relation' from Preferences dialog, then this will be still parsed as 'Married'?

> "Maybe manpower is just missing?"

Does it sound correct in english?

We could write something like 'humanpower (woman & man; more than one)' or just 'manpower' (one man) / 'womanpower' (one woman)!




cheers,

Jérôme


Le mar. 2 sept. 2014 at 20:58, Enno Borgsteede <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Jerome,
#5033 is maybe pending because it sounds like a mixture between a feature request without expected way and a missing support. Otherwise, to write description in french is maybe not a good idea... If current gedcom handler can parse: 1 MARR 2 TYPE Married
This TYPE should not be interpreted, see GEDCOM 5.5.1: "The value portion given by the TYPE tag is not intended to inform a computer program how to process the data, unless there is a list of standardized or controlled line_value choices given by the definition of the line value in this standard." Since there is no line_value specified for MARR, the value must simply be stored on import, not interpreted in any way. It may sometimes appear as if it is, because Gramps can be configured to use married as the default for relationships, but that is just a coincidence. Users can put anything here in their own language, which is of course not very portable, but that is indeed a standard problem, not one that can be solved by us.
#6970 : acknowledged! Description looks complete and valid. There is a test case sample. Maybe manpower is just missing?
Probably. I see enough other work, including FHISO :-) cheers, Enno ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Gramps-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gramps : Mantis since 3 years

enno
Jerome,
> > "unless there is a list of standardized or controlled line_value
> choices
> given by the definition of the line value in this standard."
>
> I really like this section ...
> Controlled by what? who? when?
By the standard itself, like the CHAR tag which must have a predefined
value, no random text.
> Now, I wonder if we set an other 'default relation' from Preferences
> dialog, then this will be still parsed as 'Married'?
I hope not. It makes no sense at all to me, meaning when people don't
marry, why write a MARR event at all?

Anyway, event types are not to be interpreted, so that when I write
'burgerlijk' for a marriage, it stays that way, and aliens don't know
what it means. :-)

cheers,

Enno


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gramps : Mantis since 3 years

Tim Lyons
Administrator
In reply to this post by jerome
jerome wrote
#5033 is maybe pending because it sounds like a mixture between a
feature request without expected way and a missing support. Otherwise,
to write description in french is maybe not a good idea...
Actually, I don't mind the comments being written in French (I can read French to some extent), because I have found it difficult to understand many of these bug reports. Since English is the normal language on Gramps, I suggest that for clarity, it might be best to write your reports in French, followed by your translation into English. Just would be convenient for me.

Mostly, it is simply not clear what you want Gramps to do. For example, in #5094, you say you want a "change in the management of" the arrowed lines. But what do you want Gramps to do with the arrowed lines?

I have had a long discussion with you about #5042, but I still don't know what you want Gramps to do, or why you want a change made anyway. Gramps has two representations of 'addresses' for people.

(1) The address in the Address tab

(2) The events tab with a line type residence

On export to GEDCOM, both are output as a RESI INDIVIDUAL_ATTRIBUTE_STRUCTURE http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pmcbride/gedcom/55gcch2.htm#INDIVIDUAL_ATTRIBUTE_STRUCTURE

On import of GEDCOM, the RESI INDIVIDUAL_ATTRIBUTE_STRUCTURE is stored in the events tab of the sheet with the line type residence.

So, what do you want to have happen? You don't make this clear in the bug report.

The fact is that the data model in Gramps is not the same as the data model in GEDCOM. We try to make the most reasonable mapping, but it will never be possible to (as you say) "export to GEDCOM and then import the GEDCOM file" and get the exact same result. Why do you want to? If you want to output the Gramps database and then import it and get the same result, you have to use the XML export/import.

I am very keen to ensure the best possible support for GEDCOM, but it has to be for standard GEDOM, or widely used (and clearly cited) extensions, and it has to be the best match for the Gramps data model.

Please let me know if you think any of the bugs fall into this category.