Scott Kostyshak wrote: > I'm concerned that since this issue has left us all exhausted, there is > a feeling of "let's just get this over so we can move on". I encourage > all of us to give one more cognitive spurt and give a vote. > > From what I understand, the three options are still what I proposed > three weeks ago [1]: > > 1. Revert the recently added minted support. > > 2. Keep the current state of master. > > 3. Apply the patch at [2]. Don't forget to copy emblem-shellescape.svgz > to lib/images. (Note that I get linker errors when I try to apply the > latest patch, but it might be something specific to my setup.) > > So I ask explicitly to everyone (even if you think you have already > voted, please give your vote again):
Little difficult, because what I opined was not included in your list. To sum up I favor support of minted, which would use secure calling minted once it's compilation is split into separated steps as proposed on minted bugzilla. So I do not have strong opinion whether we shoould go 1 or 2 if we fix the issues once minted is fixed. Even after all discussion I still see adding the whole needauth machinery as unnecessary complication of code and UI; possible future use of pygments still seems as made up argument for the sake of discussion rather than real user demand. So the breakdown is likely 0.5 voting points for 1 & 2. Pavel
