Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tuesday 10 December 2002 11:15 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | >>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > |
| > | Lars> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Ok, it's out.
| > | Lars> |
| > | Lars> | Are we going to keep support for xforms 0.88 and 0.89 in LyX
| > | Lars> 1.3?
| > |
| > | Lars> _I_ would like us to ditch support for 0.88 and 0.89 at once,
| > | Lars> especially 0.88.
| > |
| > | So what was the final decision on this? I think we should get rid of
| > | 0.88 now, since it is the most problematic. Note however that this
| > | will cause problems for people who use solaris and for cjk-lyx,
| > | because of shortcomings ion xforms support for input methods. But this
| > | problems have to be faced and solved anyway.
| >
| > IMHO we should let 0.88 go now, and wait a short while into the freeze
| > period before we make final decision on 0.89. (currently I am inclined
| > to keep 0.89 for 1.3.0)
|
| In many cases the code base contains stuff like
|
| #if FL_VERSION < 1 && (FL_REVISION < 89 || (FL_REVISION == 89 && FL_FIXLEVEL
| < 5))
|
| What do you propose for this? Personally, I think that
| FL_REVISION == 89 && FL_FIXLEVEL < 5
| is (in practical terms) equivalent to FL_REVISION == 88 and that it too
| should go therefore.
I agree, but I am sure we will get problems because of that....
"Hey I have 0.89, it still does not work.... 0.89 > 5 does not exist
on my OS."
I am falling towards the 1.0 only side...
--
Lgb
