What version of Gramps do you use?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
127 messages Options
1234567
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

Doug-11
gramps    : 4.2.4-98b622e
Linux Mint Debian LMDE2

On 19/10/16 15:56, Nick Hall wrote:

> On 19/10/16 15:40, Matt Keenan wrote:
>> Not upgraded yet...... Is there a wiki entry somewhere that might
>> provide assistance on what one would need to do ?
>>
>> I know there's something WRT locations all now being nested
>> hierarchically or something like that so that would require a good bit
>> of work on my behalf to resolve, is there anything else.
> One of the reasons for asking was to get a feel for how many users have
> not yet upgraded to the new place hierarchy.  I am thinking of writing a
> wiki page.
>
> Nick.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

rider
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
Gallium 2.0 (ubuntu varient for chromebooks
kernel 4.7.2
Gramps 4.2.2 downgraded from 4.2.4 due to expanded source/citation bug
Places converted some time back with no issues

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

Peter Hewett-2
In reply to this post by Nick Hall

Kubuntu 16.04
Gramps 4.2.4

and sometimes also macOS 10.12, Gramps 4.2.4


------------------------
From: Nick Hall <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:32:22 +0100
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Gramps-users] What version of Gramps do you use?

> I am interested to find out how many users read this list and what
> version of Gramps they are using.
>
> Please reply with the version of Gramps and operating system you use.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>



 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

rcarlson
In reply to this post by Nick Hall

4.2.3 ubuntu 16.04 - busy testing 4.2.4


Richard


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

TJMcK
Currently using Lubuntu 16.04 Server
but prefer Xubuntu 16.04 Server (however, Gramps currently has "selection" bug)
Gramps 4.2.4

Access Gramps on Server, using remote connection

Also:Testing Gramps v.5 git using Ubuntu 16.04 (minimal) in VBox
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

Maldemer
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
Gramps 4.2.2
Mac 10.11.6

Cheers,

David
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

MJBMZ
This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
Gramps 4.2.0 on Xubuntu 16.04 via X2Go from Windows Machine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

brian fitzgerald
In reply to this post by rcarlson

4.2.4 on Ubuntu 16.04



On 10/20/2016 02:52 PM, Richard Carlson wrote:

4.2.3 ubuntu 16.04 - busy testing 4.2.4


Richard



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

Martnal
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
GrampsAIO64-4.2.3-1 and Windows 10

Martin, SW London

Gedmatch DNA Kit H062246.
FT-DNA Kit B388093.

Names: Loughborough and Loughbrough, (London, Hull, Pirton and Hartlepool);
Watson, (Bedlington, Jarrow & H'pool);
Ballard & Glassop (E. London); 
Leggett (Corton, Scarborough, Hartlepool); 
Young & Wilson, (Hartlepool). 

I am using GrampsAIO64-5.0.0-1 on Windows 10.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

David L McMurray
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
4.2.4 on Windows 7

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Hall [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:32 AM
> To: Gramps-Users
> Subject: [Gramps-users] What version of Gramps do you use?
>
> I am interested to find out how many users read this list and what version
of
> Gramps they are using.
>
> Please reply with the version of Gramps and operating system you use.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

Brian Grawburg
I've already responded to the question, but the results so far have prompted one from me.

I use 3.4.9-1. I don't fully understand what I will gain from an upgrade. 95% of my 'people' are from the U.S. or Canada, the remainder from the U.K.
It seems most the discussion about newer versions revolves around Places.  So, here's the bottom line:  Why should I care? What is an upgrade going to give me that will make me say "WOW"?  I have seen one improvement in the Family Report layout (prints the ID #), but that's hardly enough to make me switch.

Comments?

Brian Grawburg
Wilson, NC


--
[This was sent from a PC running Debian 7, 64-bit Linux. No Microsoft products were used.]





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

PeterPower
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
4.2.4 and Windows 10.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

Steven I Usdansky
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
Gramps version: 4.2.4
OS: Fedora Rawhide (26)

Gramps version: 4.2.3
OS: Ubuntu 16.10

--
RockDoctor

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

Nick Hall
In reply to this post by Brian Grawburg
On 21/10/16 16:38, Grawburg wrote:
> I use 3.4.9-1. I don't fully understand what I will gain from an upgrade. 95% of my 'people' are from the U.S. or Canada, the remainder from the U.K.
> It seems most the discussion about newer versions revolves around Places.  So, here's the bottom line:  Why should I care? What is an upgrade going to give me that will make me say "WOW"?  I have seen one improvement in the Family Report layout (prints the ID #), but that's hardly enough to make me switch.
>
> Comments?

So far, 18 out of 84 replies (19%) are from people who have not yet
upgraded to a version that includes the new place hierarchy. Most of
these are using 3.4.9.

Why upgrade?  What is the advantage of a place hierarchy?

Take, for example, Wilson NC.

In 3.4, you would create a single place and give it the name "Wilson,
NC". Then you would fill in the country, state and city fields of the
main location with "USA", "NC" and "Wilson".  This involves duplicating
some information.

Now consider adding another place for "Raleigh, NC".  For consistency,
you have to remember to enter "NC" instead of "North Carolina" and "USA"
instead of "U.S.A." or "United States of America".  There is also a
possibility of a typo.

In 4.2, you would create separate places for "USA", "NC" and "Wilson".  
You would specify that Wilson is enclosed by NC which in turn is
enclosed by USA.  A title of "Wilson, NC, USA" will be generated
automatically.

Adding "Raleigh" is easy.  Create a place called "Raleigh" and enclose
it in "NC".

Consistency is ensured and there is no chance of spelling mistakes
affecting filters.

Why stay with 3.4.9?  I can think of a few reasons:

1. Your existing place data will not easily upgrade.

2. You prefer the look and feel of Gtk2.

3. Your OS will not run a later version.

4. You don't need any of the new features in later versions.

Perhaps we need another pool.


Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

jerome
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
I do not think that Place hierarchy improvement should be limited to
non-American countries!

This could be also useful for "indigenous peoples of the Americas"
or alternate state status and top place level (country).
e.g., history of Louisiana state or Quebec province cannot be simple;
"Chemin neuf, France" became "New Roads, Louisiana, USA"   etc ...

In USA, The ZIP code based hierarchy seems also very recent?
How to display historical place names according to periods and records?



--------------------------------------------
En date de : Ven 21.10.16, Grawburg <[hidden email]> a écrit :

 Objet: Re: [Gramps-users] What version of Gramps do you use?
 À: "'Gramps-Users'" <[hidden email]>
 Date: Vendredi 21 octobre 2016, 17h38
 
 I've already
 responded to the question, but the results so far have
 prompted one from me.
 
 I use
 3.4.9-1. I don't fully understand what I will gain from
 an upgrade. 95% of my 'people' are from the U.S. or
 Canada, the remainder from the U.K.
 It seems
 most the discussion about newer versions revolves around
 Places.  So, here's the bottom line:  Why should I
 care? What is an upgrade going to give me that will make me
 say "WOW"?  I have seen one improvement in the
 Family Report layout (prints the ID #), but that's
 hardly enough to make me switch.
 
 Comments?
 
 Brian Grawburg
 Wilson, NC
 
 
 --
 [This was sent from a PC running Debian 7,
 64-bit Linux. No Microsoft products were used.]
 
 
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Check out the vibrant tech community on one of
 the world's most
 engaging tech sites,
 SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
 _______________________________________________
 Gramps-users mailing list
 [hidden email]
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What version of Gramps do you use?

James Sherring-2
In reply to this post by Nick Hall

Gramps 4.2.4 on win10


On 22 Oct 2016 04:08, "Nick Hall" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 21/10/16 16:38, Grawburg wrote:
> I use 3.4.9-1. I don't fully understand what I will gain from an upgrade. 95% of my 'people' are from the U.S. or Canada, the remainder from the U.K.
> It seems most the discussion about newer versions revolves around Places.  So, here's the bottom line:  Why should I care? What is an upgrade going to give me that will make me say "WOW"?  I have seen one improvement in the Family Report layout (prints the ID #), but that's hardly enough to make me switch.
>
> Comments?

So far, 18 out of 84 replies (19%) are from people who have not yet
upgraded to a version that includes the new place hierarchy. Most of
these are using 3.4.9.

Why upgrade?  What is the advantage of a place hierarchy?

Take, for example, Wilson NC.

In 3.4, you would create a single place and give it the name "Wilson,
NC". Then you would fill in the country, state and city fields of the
main location with "USA", "NC" and "Wilson".  This involves duplicating
some information.

Now consider adding another place for "Raleigh, NC".  For consistency,
you have to remember to enter "NC" instead of "North Carolina" and "USA"
instead of "U.S.A." or "United States of America".  There is also a
possibility of a typo.

In 4.2, you would create separate places for "USA", "NC" and "Wilson".
You would specify that Wilson is enclosed by NC which in turn is
enclosed by USA.  A title of "Wilson, NC, USA" will be generated
automatically.

Adding "Raleigh" is easy.  Create a place called "Raleigh" and enclose
it in "NC".

Consistency is ensured and there is no chance of spelling mistakes
affecting filters.

Why stay with 3.4.9?  I can think of a few reasons:

1. Your existing place data will not easily upgrade.

2. You prefer the look and feel of Gtk2.

3. Your OS will not run a later version.

4. You don't need any of the new features in later versions.

Perhaps we need another pool.


Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Place hierarchy

Michael Stockhausen
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
>From: Nick Hall
>Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:56 PM
>One of the reasons for asking was to get a feel for how many users have
>not yet upgraded to the new place hierarchy.  I am thinking of writing a
>wiki page.


Nick,
having a wiki page for the place hierarchy would be very helpful.
I see two aspects that make the usage of the new hierarchy difficult:
1. You need to adapt your old "mess" to the new structure (at least in my
case). This is mainly a lot of work.
On the Gramps side, users need some technical explanation how to use the
functionalities (enclosed_by, dates, etc.), including the
possibilities to import data. The user manual already contains a good
description, but additional information would certainly be appreciated.
2. How to apply the structure, especially for historical places. Here, there
may be no "right"and "wrong". Every user will have his/her own needs. It
would be helpful, though, to have a guideline, a kind of "best practices".
If someone has already developed a good and workable concept, it could quite
easily be re-used by others. Firstly, this would avoid double work, and
secondly facilitate communication and exchange.

For most of you in the US, reflecting the historical hierarchy will probably
not be so difficult - maybe just a few county changes here and there. For us
in Europe (especially my areas of interest: Germany and Poland) this can
really cause a headache.

Before I start to apply my concept, I would appreciate receiving any
comments and suggestions.
I am not sure if this is interesting for everybody, or if I should just have
a bilateral exchange with anyone who has similar problems.

A couple of general rules that I want to apply to the extent possible:

1) Enter all places with their current names and hierarchies.
2) Reflect historical hierarchies by using the "enclosed_by" and/or
"Alternative name" plus "date"
3) Avoid redundancies
4) Use "Alternative name" rather than creating a (partly) redundant new
place (region)
5) Apply a similar structure for all regions
6) Be GEDCOM compliant
7) Keep it simple
8) ...
But, no rules without exceptions.....

Here is one practical issue that I am facing. I can't expect all
of you to be familiar with the details of German/Polish history, so I could
create some more generic (ficticious) cases, if this eases the discussion.

In modern Germany we have a state (Bundesland) called Baden-Württemberg
(short: BaWü).
It was created in 1952 by merging Württemberg, Baden and Hohenzollern.
Before WW2 they were separate provinces, and from 1871 to 1918 Duchies in
the German Empire; before 1871 independant Duchies (countries) in the
various
German federations.
Before 1771, Baden was subdivided into Baden-Durlach and Baden-Baden.
Following rule no. 7 ("keep it simple"), I will disregard Hohenzollern and
Baden-Baden, as I have no ancestors who lived there - at least for the time
being. I can still adapt afterwards, if necessary. I also don't care about
any events after about 1820, as my ancestors left the region and emigrated
to Poland in the time span 1781-1803.

Let's take these two examples:
2016
Rietheim, Tuttlingen, BaWü, Germany
Kandern, Lörrach (county), BaWü, Germany

1800
Rietheim, Tuttlingen, Württemberg, Holy Roman Empire
Kandern, Lörrach, Baden, Holy Roman Empire

1770
Kandern, Lörrach, Baden-Durlach, Holy Roman Empire


At the country level I have "Germany" in 2016, and use the "Alternative
name"
function plus dates to re-name to Deutsches Reich (1871-1945), Holy Roman
Empire until 1806, etc.
I will come back to some difficulties here later.

For the province/state level, I see three (or more?) options:
a) create different provinces for Württemberg, Baden, maybe even
Baden-Durlach, and then Baden-Württemberg.
I don't like this option, as continuity is lost.
b) Most of my ancestors from present-day BaWü lived in the Württemberg part,
which is also the larger part of the state and includes the capital
Stuttgart. I could define this as the "core" of modern BaWü and create a
province BaWü (after 1945) with the alternative name Württemberg pre-1945. I
would then also have to create a separate province Baden for those few
events that took place there pre-1945.
c) I create two provinces:
2016: BaWü (formerly Baden) and BaWü (formerly Würrtemberg), alternative
names Baden pre-1945, Baden-Durlach (pre 1771) for the first and Württemberg
pre-1945 for the second.
I think this is my favorite.

Any views, other ideas?
Has anyone had similar cases?

Michael




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
NdK
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Place hierarchy

NdK
Il 22/10/2016 18:22, Michael Stockhausen ha scritto:

> For most of you in the US, reflecting the historical hierarchy will probably
> not be so difficult - maybe just a few county changes here and there. For us
> in Europe (especially my areas of interest: Germany and Poland) this can
> really cause a headache.
That's where having an importable db could help: why have many people
repeat the same work, possibly introducing errors?
It could be useful to have a web interface where one could enter the
"history" of a place so that others can download.

BYtE,
 Diego

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Place hierarchy

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Michael Stockhausen
On 10/22/2016 11:52 AM, NdK wrote:

> Il 22/10/2016 18:22, Michael Stockhausen ha scritto:
>
>> For most of you in the US, reflecting the historical hierarchy will probably
>> not be so difficult - maybe just a few county changes here and there. For us
>> in Europe (especially my areas of interest: Germany and Poland) this can
>> really cause a headache.
> That's where having an importable db could help: why have many people
> repeat the same work, possibly introducing errors?
> It could be useful to have a web interface where one could enter the
> "history" of a place so that others can download.

We've discussed that before.  Implementing it is not trivial, though, and
takes time that no one wants to spend.

--
World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Place hierarchy

Gerhard Killesreiter
Am 22.10.2016 um 19:00 schrieb Ron Johnson:

> On 10/22/2016 11:52 AM, NdK wrote:
>> Il 22/10/2016 18:22, Michael Stockhausen ha scritto:
>>
>>> For most of you in the US, reflecting the historical hierarchy will probably
>>> not be so difficult - maybe just a few county changes here and there. For us
>>> in Europe (especially my areas of interest: Germany and Poland) this can
>>> really cause a headache.
>> That's where having an importable db could help: why have many people
>> repeat the same work, possibly introducing errors?
>> It could be useful to have a web interface where one could enter the
>> "history" of a place so that others can download.
>
> We've discussed that before.  Implementing it is not trivial, though, and
> takes time that no one wants to spend.
>

Doesn't that already exist?

http://gov.genealogy.net/search/index

Sadly, they only offer the download "from village to country" not the
other way around.

There's even an experimental Gramplet.

Cheers,
Gerhard

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
1234567