Comment 9 for bug 1858448

I agree with Michele. When I initially saw what Bill was proposing, I read it as a combination of option 1 and 2, which I thought was a great idea.

I don't think we should ever lose where a payment was made, regardless of how long ago the transaction occurred. Michele's earlier comment is a fine case for this. A patron could make a payment, and then later that day their account could be purged. That payment would forever be lost for reporting. Another example: Perhaps a network ages circulations after 2 years. A patron owes on a lost item that was checked out 3 years ago. He comes in to pay for the lost item. Because the transaction is over 2 years old, it is aged that night along with the payment that just happened.

The problem with implementing 2/3 is that the user who turns them on might not realize they are losing/missing payments.