Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-14 Thread Richard Heck 
On 02/14/2018 09:34 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 13/02/2018 à 07:53, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :
>> Am Dienstag, den 13.02.2018, 01:54 +0100 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
>>> In my opinion a major version should contain all major bugfixes. Here
>>> we
>>> have a menu entry for a feature that doesn't work. This is no good
>>> advertisement for LyX.
>>> We have a working fix that is well tested on Windows. If we know that
>>> it
>>> works also well on MacOS I think it is safe. Jürgen, please correct
>>> me
>>> if I am wrong.
>>
>> I would be more easy if we could test the fix a bit, so I'd prefer
>> 2.3.1. (push it immediately after 2.3.0 is out).

I have just created a 2.3.1-staging branch. Please commit there.

Richard

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-14 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 

Le 13/02/2018 à 07:53, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :

Am Dienstag, den 13.02.2018, 01:54 +0100 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:

In my opinion a major version should contain all major bugfixes. Here
we
have a menu entry for a feature that doesn't work. This is no good
advertisement for LyX.
We have a working fix that is well tested on Windows. If we know that
it
works also well on MacOS I think it is safe. Jürgen, please correct
me
if I am wrong.


I would be more easy if we could test the fix a bit, so I'd prefer
2.3.1. (push it immediately after 2.3.0 is out).


+1

JMarc

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-14 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 

Le 13/02/2018 à 21:30, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 01:14:43PM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:


Scott, do you want to wait for a nod from the windows side or can I apply
the patch now ?


Please go ahead now. Thanks for the patch.


Done. Someone might want to remove the paragraph about it  in UserGuides 
other than English.


JMarc

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-13 Thread Scott Kostyshak 
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 01:14:43PM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

> Scott, do you want to wait for a nod from the windows side or can I apply
> the patch now ?

Please go ahead now. Thanks for the patch.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [PATCH] Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-13 Thread Scott Kostyshak 
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:45:19PM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 12/02/2018 à 17:41, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> > Why do you leave in the following code?
> > 
> >   #if defined(Q_WS_X11) || defined(QPA_XCB)
> >  pixmapCacheCB->setEnabled(false);
> >   #endif
> > 
> > I'm guessing it's because you want to make as minimal changes as
> > possible?
> 
> Yes.

OK makes sense.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-13 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 

Le 13/02/2018 à 01:56, Joel Kulesza a écrit :

JMarc,

I applied your patch to master@5f1b32f8c (note: it didn't apply cleanly, 
see below my signature).  Regardless, it hid the checkbox and associated 
label properly and the LyX interface behaved as though the setting is 
disabled (i.e., math was rendered properly).  I also inserted the line 
enabling the preference in my .../preferences file, and that did not 
appear to cause a problem.


 From my standpoint, this patch works as intended.


Dear Joel,

Thanks for testing. It is expected that the patch does not apply to 
master. Actually, I do not plan to apply it there.


Scott, do you want to wait for a nod from the windows side or can I 
apply the patch now ?


JMarc

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller 
Am Dienstag, den 13.02.2018, 01:54 +0100 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
> In my opinion a major version should contain all major bugfixes. Here
> we 
> have a menu entry for a feature that doesn't work. This is no good 
> advertisement for LyX.
> We have a working fix that is well tested on Windows. If we know that
> it 
> works also well on MacOS I think it is safe. Jürgen, please correct
> me 
> if I am wrong.

I would be more easy if we could test the fix a bit, so I'd prefer
2.3.1. (push it immediately after 2.3.0 is out).

Jürgen

> 
> regards Uwe

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Richard Heck 
On 02/12/2018 07:54 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 13.02.2018 um 00:19 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>>> https://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9139
>>
>> I don't see the advantage of doing this at a major version. Even if
>> there is an advantage, I don't think that so soon before the final
>> release is the right time for this non-trivial patch. From what I
>> understand, this temporary file name stuff is tricky. I know you've
>> tested the patch and it works for you, but I'm worried there could be
>> hidden problems.
>
> In my opinion a major version should contain all major bugfixes. Here
> we have a menu entry for a feature that doesn't work. This is no good
> advertisement for LyX.

It hasn't worked for quite a while, apparently.

> We have a working fix that is well tested on Windows. If we know that
> it works also well on MacOS I think it is safe. Jürgen, please correct
> me if I am wrong.

We're likely to have a fairly quick 2.3.1 release. How quick will depend
upon the feedback, but there are a number of things lined up already for
2.3.x, so it'll be a couple months at most.

Richard

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Joel Kulesza 
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 
wrote:

> Le 10/02/2018 à 20:28, Joel Kulesza a écrit :
>
>> The only comment I have is that a crash may be causable if the preference
>> is ignored rather than disabled (see https://www.mail-archive.com/l
>> yx-de...@lists.lyx.org/msg203649.html).  Disabling the checkbox removes
>> the ability to reproduce.
>>
>> Otherwise, I have no comment on stability concerns.
>>
>
> Hello Joel,
>
> My approach is to remove the UI element and do as if the feature was
> always disabled. Could you confirm that the patch I sent is OK? In
> particular in a setting whzere you have the feature enabled.
>

JMarc,

I applied your patch to master@5f1b32f8c (note: it didn't apply cleanly,
see below my signature).  Regardless, it hid the checkbox and associated
label properly and the LyX interface behaved as though the setting is
disabled (i.e., math was rendered properly).  I also inserted the line
enabling the preference in my .../preferences file, and that did not appear
to cause a problem.

>From my standpoint, this patch works as intended.

Thanks,
Joel

--

[Git(jmarc_patch)]
8935 jkulesza@tempest[~/GIT/lyx]> g apply
0001-Disable-and-hide-the-pixmap-cache-feature.patch
error: patch failed: lib/RELEASE-NOTES:20
error: lib/RELEASE-NOTES: patch does not apply
error: patch failed: src/frontends/qt4/GuiPainter.cpp:50
error: src/frontends/qt4/GuiPainter.cpp: patch does not apply

--

[Git(jmarc_patch)]
8937 jkulesza@tempest[~/GIT/lyx]> g apply --reject
0001-Disable-and-hide-the-pixmap-cache-feature.patch
Checking patch lib/RELEASE-NOTES...
error: while searching for:
  See chapter 3.9.1.1 "Dashes and Line Breaks" of the User Guide and
  "Caveats when upgrading from earlier versions to 2.3.x" below.

* The following UI translations were dropped, because the lack of
translation
  maintenance:  Russian, Danish, Greek, Serbian, Galician, Catalan,
Romanian,
  Dutch.

error: patch failed: lib/RELEASE-NOTES:20
error: while searching for:
* \screen_zoom
  This is now independent of the value set via buffer-zoom[-in|-out].


!!!The following new LyX functions have been introduced in 2.3:


error: patch failed: lib/RELEASE-NOTES:87
Checking patch lib/doc/UserGuide.lyx...
Checking patch src/frontends/qt4/GuiPainter.cpp...
error: while searching for:

GuiPainter::GuiPainter(QPaintDevice * device, double pixel_ratio)
: QPainter(device), Painter(pixel_ratio),
  use_pixmap_cache_(lyxrc.use_pixmap_cache && USE_PIXMAP_CACHE)
{
// new QPainter has default QPen:
current_color_ = guiApp->colorCache().get(Color_black);

error: patch failed: src/frontends/qt4/GuiPainter.cpp:50
Checking patch src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp...
Applying patch lib/RELEASE-NOTES with 2 rejects...
Rejected hunk #1.
Rejected hunk #2.
Applied patch lib/doc/UserGuide.lyx cleanly.
Applying patch src/frontends/qt4/GuiPainter.cpp with 1 reject...
Rejected hunk #1.
Applied patch src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp cleanly.

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Uwe Stöhr 

Am 13.02.2018 um 00:19 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


I agree that the 2.3. branch is stable I used it recently for a larger
document. The strange, random Win-only crash is annoying but we cannot do
much right now.


Just to make sure, the crash you're talking about also exists for 2.2.x,
right?


Yes, but there the bug appears less often. This is of course just a 
feeling since it is a random crash. However, it only appears when 
working with documents containing Latin and non-Latin content. For pure 
e.g. Cyrillic content it does not occur. So only people like me might 
see it, not the average user.



https://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9139


I don't see the advantage of doing this at a major version. Even if
there is an advantage, I don't think that so soon before the final
release is the right time for this non-trivial patch. From what I
understand, this temporary file name stuff is tricky. I know you've
tested the patch and it works for you, but I'm worried there could be
hidden problems.


In my opinion a major version should contain all major bugfixes. Here we 
have a menu entry for a feature that doesn't work. This is no good 
advertisement for LyX.
We have a working fix that is well tested on Windows. If we know that it 
works also well on MacOS I think it is safe. Jürgen, please correct me 
if I am wrong.


regards Uwe

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Scott Kostyshak 
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 06:00:52PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 10.02.2018 um 19:51 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> 
> > I'm planning to be more strict now on which bug fixes go in for 2.3.0. I
> > might prefer that even a simple bug fix not be committed, unless it
> > fixes an important bug.
> 
> Hello Scott,
> 
> I agree that the 2.3. branch is stable I used it recently for a larger
> document. The strange, random Win-only crash is annoying but we cannot do
> much right now.

Just to make sure, the crash you're talking about also exists for 2.2.x,
right?

> I had today a look for potential things that should go in before LyX 2.3.0
> and I think
> https://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9139
> is worth it.
> The feature of pasting from TeX had been broken under Windows for years
> (maybe since ever) therefore a new major version is the right point to
> introduce this feature also for Windows users.

I don't see the advantage of doing this at a major version. Even if
there is an advantage, I don't think that so soon before the final
release is the right time for this non-trivial patch. From what I
understand, this temporary file name stuff is tricky. I know you've
tested the patch and it works for you, but I'm worried there could be
hidden problems.

> I distributed now all changes in the docs and despite there are still things
> to document I would wait unless you say I should use the time update the
> docs until the last hour before the release.

I think waiting makes sense.

Thanks,

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Uwe Stöhr 

Am 10.02.2018 um 19:51 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


I'm planning to be more strict now on which bug fixes go in for 2.3.0. I
might prefer that even a simple bug fix not be committed, unless it
fixes an important bug.


Hello Scott,

I agree that the 2.3. branch is stable I used it recently for a larger 
document. The strange, random Win-only crash is annoying but we cannot 
do much right now.


I had today a look for potential things that should go in before LyX 
2.3.0 and I think

https://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9139
is worth it.
The feature of pasting from TeX had been broken under Windows for years 
(maybe since ever) therefore a new major version is the right point to 
introduce this feature also for Windows users.


I distributed now all changes in the docs and despite there are still 
things to document I would wait unless you say I should use the time 
update the docs until the last hour before the release.


regards Uwe

Re: [PATCH] Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Scott Kostyshak 
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:18:16AM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

> This seems simple enough, but of course should be checked by Mac/Win people.

+1

> I also removed traces of it in the English User's Guide, and added some
> entries in release notes. Feel free to improve on the wording.

Thank you, looks good.

> Comments welcome.

Why do you leave in the following code?

 #if defined(Q_WS_X11) || defined(QPA_XCB)
pixmapCacheCB->setEnabled(false);
 #endif

I'm guessing it's because you want to make as minimal changes as
possible?

> PS: I do not think it is worth applying this to master. We will either end
> up fixing the feature or removing it altogether.

+1

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Scott Kostyshak 
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:24:53AM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

> I propose to keep the faulty superscript for now and take some time to
> determine a satisfactory solution.

Fine with me. I'll update the main thread on this issue, and take this
off my 2.3.0 list unless there is disagreement.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Pavel Sanda 
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 12/02/2018 ?? 17:14, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
>> I do not think that any package maintainer in his senses will ever push 2.3
>> directly to testing when issues like this are involved :)
>
> You mean that they are more careful than us ?
>
> But this patch was not ours, was it?

I did not dig deeper, it's not my problem after all :)
I only meant that they need their own time for stabilizing stuff
which is likely more than 5 days...

Pavel

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 

Le 12/02/2018 à 17:14, Pavel Sanda a écrit :

I quickly checked whether we know the current maintainer from the list
and this log showed as one of the changes between 2.2.3-5 x 2.2.3-5:
...
Revert "Use Python 3 instead of 2", introduced in 2.2.3-3. The support of
Python 3 is still too fragile and results in FTBFS bugs in packages depending
on lyx conversion scripts.
...

I do not think that any package maintainer in his senses will ever push 2.3
directly to testing when issues like this are involved :)


You mean that they are more careful than us ?

But this patch was not ours, was it?

JMarc

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Pavel Sanda 
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 12/02/2018 ?? 16:23, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
>> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>> Another data point: to have a chance to get LyX 2.3.0 in ubuntu 18/04 LTS,
>>> we will need it to be in debian before March 1st. I do not know how quick
>>> the debian maintainers will be to package 2.3.0 there (they have a life too
>>> ;), so it is our interest to get this thing out.
>> I'd say no chance; rc2 is only in experimental it would need to bubble
>> through unstable (currently 2.2.3-5) to testing (2.2.3-2) first and I
>> strongly doubt they will just push it directly to testing within week or so.
>> You can always ask though...
>
> I kind of suspected that... Too bad.

I quickly checked whether we know the current maintainer from the list
and this log showed as one of the changes between 2.2.3-5 x 2.2.3-5:
...
Revert "Use Python 3 instead of 2", introduced in 2.2.3-3. The support of
Python 3 is still too fragile and results in FTBFS bugs in packages depending
on lyx conversion scripts. 
...

I do not think that any package maintainer in his senses will ever push 2.3
directly to testing when issues like this are involved :)

Pavel

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 

Le 12/02/2018 à 16:23, Pavel Sanda a écrit :

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

Another data point: to have a chance to get LyX 2.3.0 in ubuntu 18/04 LTS,
we will need it to be in debian before March 1st. I do not know how quick
the debian maintainers will be to package 2.3.0 there (they have a life too
;), so it is our interest to get this thing out.


I'd say no chance; rc2 is only in experimental it would need to bubble through
unstable (currently 2.2.3-5) to testing (2.2.3-2) first and I strongly doubt
they will just push it directly to testing within week or so.
You can always ask though...


I kind of suspected that... Too bad.

JMarc

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Pavel Sanda 
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Another data point: to have a chance to get LyX 2.3.0 in ubuntu 18/04 LTS, 
> we will need it to be in debian before March 1st. I do not know how quick 
> the debian maintainers will be to package 2.3.0 there (they have a life too 
> ;), so it is our interest to get this thing out.

I'd say no chance; rc2 is only in experimental it would need to bubble through
unstable (currently 2.2.3-5) to testing (2.2.3-2) first and I strongly doubt
they will just push it directly to testing within week or so.
You can always ask though...

Pavel

Re: [PATCH] Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 

Le 12/02/2018 à 11:18, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :

Le 10/02/2018 à 22:24, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
I can propose something simple on Monday: remove from GUI (like we do 
in Linux) and always act as if the pref is off.


Here is what I had in mind. I discovered that the checkbox was not 
hidden but disabled on Linux. I added code to hide it and ignore it.


This seems simple enough, but of course should be checked by Mac/Win 
people.


Also, can someone confirm that hiding the checkbox is harmless?

JMarc

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 

Le 10/02/2018 à 23:49, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

The only other regression to my knowledge that is pending is a minor
issue in LyX's painting:


https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=20180210042849.k6trww2rmruj4jrq%40steph

There is a patch pending, and we just need to decide what is best to do
for 2.3.0.


As far as I understand it, Enrico's patch is a revertion. THis means that it
probably re-introduce the bug with displaying $\not=$.


For 2.3.0 I guess you and Enrico should decide which is worse, unless
someone else has a strong opinion.


I am sorry, I skipped the fact that Enrico's proposal changes the 
definition of \not and friends to hide the \not width problems. To be 
frank, I'd like to avoid this if we can.


I propose to keep the faulty superscript for now and take some time to 
determine a satisfactory solution.


JMarc

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 

Le 10/02/2018 à 20:28, Joel Kulesza a écrit :
The only comment I have is that a crash may be causable if the 
preference is ignored rather than disabled (see 
https://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg203649.html).  
Disabling the checkbox removes the ability to reproduce.


Otherwise, I have no comment on stability concerns.


Hello Joel,

My approach is to remove the UI element and do as if the feature was 
always disabled. Could you confirm that the patch I sent is OK? In 
particular in a setting whzere you have the feature enabled.


JMarc

[PATCH] Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-12 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 

Le 10/02/2018 à 22:24, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
I can propose something simple on Monday: remove from GUI (like we do in 
Linux) and always act as if the pref is off.


Here is what I had in mind. I discovered that the checkbox was not 
hidden but disabled on Linux. I added code to hide it and ignore it.


This seems simple enough, but of course should be checked by Mac/Win people.

I also removed traces of it in the English User's Guide, and added some 
entries in release notes. Feel free to improve on the wording.


Comments welcome.

JMarc

PS: I do not think it is worth applying this to master. We will either 
end up fixing the feature or removing it altogether.
From 49c6aad0d025867aaf1adeae56bbdfa51f7616d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:12:50 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Disable and hide the pixmap cache feature

---
 lib/RELEASE-NOTES|  6 ++
 lib/doc/UserGuide.lyx| 18 --
 src/frontends/qt4/GuiPainter.cpp |  2 +-
 src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp   |  2 +-
 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/RELEASE-NOTES b/lib/RELEASE-NOTES
index dccd1f1..95485d6 100644
--- a/lib/RELEASE-NOTES
+++ b/lib/RELEASE-NOTES
@@ -20,6 +20,10 @@
   See chapter 3.9.1.1 "Dashes and Line Breaks" of the User Guide and
   "Caveats when upgrading from earlier versions to 2.3.x" below.
 
+* The preference "Tools->Preferences->Look>Screen Fonts->Use
+  pixmap cache to speed up font rendering" is not available anymore.
+  It was of dubious value and led to rendering issues.
+
 * The following UI translations were dropped, because the lack of translation
   maintenance:  Russian, Danish, Greek, Serbian, Galician, Catalan, Romanian,
   Dutch.
@@ -87,6 +91,8 @@
 * \screen_zoom
   This is now independent of the value set via buffer-zoom[-in|-out].
 
+* \use_pixmap_cache
+  The value of this variable is now ignored.
 
 !!!The following new LyX functions have been introduced in 2.3:
 
diff --git a/lib/doc/UserGuide.lyx b/lib/doc/UserGuide.lyx
index 06cfd1f..fb8cac9 100644
--- a/lib/doc/UserGuide.lyx
+++ b/lib/doc/UserGuide.lyx
@@ -46198,24 +46198,6 @@ reference "subsec:Document-Font"
 .
 \end_layout
 
-\begin_layout Standard
-With the option 
-\family sans
-Use pixmap cache to speed up font rendering
-\family default
- enabled, \SpecialChar LyX
- needs to redraw the screen less often.
- This results in better performance, especially on slow systems.
- On the other hand, the characters might look more fuzzy on screen.
- So whether you enable this or not depends on whether you prefer speed over
- aesthetics.
- Note that the Pixmap Cache is only available and useful under Mac
-\begin_inset space ~
-\end_inset
-
-OS and Windows.
-\end_layout
-
 \begin_layout Subsection
 Colors
 \begin_inset Index idx
diff --git a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPainter.cpp b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPainter.cpp
index a3cb089..e832f23 100644
--- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPainter.cpp
+++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPainter.cpp
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ const int Painter::thin_line = 1;
 
 GuiPainter::GuiPainter(QPaintDevice * device, double pixel_ratio)
 	: QPainter(device), Painter(pixel_ratio),
-	  use_pixmap_cache_(lyxrc.use_pixmap_cache && USE_PIXMAP_CACHE)
+	  use_pixmap_cache_(false)
 {
 	// new QPainter has default QPen:
 	current_color_ = guiApp->colorCache().get(Color_black);
diff --git a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp
index 4681dd3..dc04ec5 100644
--- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp
+++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp
@@ -1137,7 +1137,7 @@ void PrefScreenFonts::updateRC(LyXRC const & rc)
 #if defined(Q_WS_X11) || defined(QPA_XCB)
 	pixmapCacheCB->setEnabled(false);
 #endif
-
+	pixmapCacheCB->hide();
 }
 
 
-- 
2.7.4

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-11 Thread José Abílio Matos 
On Saturday, 10 February 2018 18.51.44 WET Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> What is your feeling on how stable our 2.3.x branch currently is? I have
> the feeling that it is quite stable and that we should now make plans
> for the next step in the release process. I propose to make the final
> 2.3.0 release in about two weeks. What are your thoughts? Should we make
> a rc3 release? Should we wait longer than two weeks?

I have been using the 2.3 branch successfully and it is quite stable. 
Ironically just as Jürgen 
mentioned some of the bugs that I found, and that have been fixed, are bugs 
that have been 
here for a long time. :-)

So I too support a quick release with a fast 2.3.1 if the need arrives.

Another option would be to release an rc3 and after some time release that as 
the final 
version and rename it 2.3.0. At the moment I do not see any reason to justify 
this delay/
precaution that at the same time means more work.

Regards,
-- 
José Abílio

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-11 Thread Richard Heck 
On 02/10/2018 01:51 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> What is your feeling on how stable our 2.3.x branch currently is? I have the 
> feeling that it is quite stable and that we should now make plans for the 
> next step in the release process. I propose to make the final 2.3.0 release 
> in about two weeks. What are your thoughts? Should we make a rc3 release? 
> Should we wait longer than two weeks?

I have been using 2.3.x for regular work for a few months now, because I
needed some of the new features. I've had no problems with it at all.

I am also in favor of going ahead with the release. As JMarc said, we
can release 2.3.1 quickly if need be.

Richard

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-10 Thread Scott Kostyshak 
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 09:24:52PM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 10/02/2018 à 19:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> > One pending issue is that we appear to have broken the pixmap cache
> > (compared to 2.2.3). We are considering not fixing it and instead
> > ignoring the preference since we have no reason to believe that the
> > preference is useful anymore. This late in the release is not the best
> > time to deprecate a preference, but in my opinion it seems reasonable.
> > For discussion, see:
> > 
> >
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=4e7e9bb4-ac2e-1c6d-ee4b-1bfc848b9e2e%40lyx.org
> 
> I can propose something simple on Monday: remove from GUI (like we do in
> Linux) and always act as if the pref is off.

OK.

> > The only other regression to my knowledge that is pending is a minor
> > issue in LyX's painting:
> > 
> >
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=20180210042849.k6trww2rmruj4jrq%40steph
> > 
> > There is a patch pending, and we just need to decide what is best to do
> > for 2.3.0.
> 
> As far as I understand it, Enrico's patch is a revertion. THis means that it
> probably re-introduce the bug with displaying $\not=$.

For 2.3.0 I guess you and Enrico should decide which is worse, unless
someone else has a strong opinion.

> We have to understand what really happens. I tried a bit last week, to no
> avail.

If you find a simple fix perhaps we could consider it for 2.3.0, but it
sounds like this type of issue is fragile.

> > What is your feeling on how stable our 2.3.x branch currently is? I have
> > the feeling that it is quite stable and that we should now make plans
> > for the next step in the release process. I propose to make the final
> > 2.3.0 release in about two weeks. What are your thoughts? Should we make
> > a rc3 release? Should we wait longer than two weeks?
> 
> I'd say we should release soon and be ready to have a quick 2.3.1 if needed.

Sounds good.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-10 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 

Le 10/02/2018 à 19:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

One pending issue is that we appear to have broken the pixmap cache
(compared to 2.2.3). We are considering not fixing it and instead
ignoring the preference since we have no reason to believe that the
preference is useful anymore. This late in the release is not the best
time to deprecate a preference, but in my opinion it seems reasonable.
For discussion, see:

   
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=4e7e9bb4-ac2e-1c6d-ee4b-1bfc848b9e2e%40lyx.org


I can propose something simple on Monday: remove from GUI (like we do in 
Linux) and always act as if the pref is off.



The only other regression to my knowledge that is pending is a minor
issue in LyX's painting:

   
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=20180210042849.k6trww2rmruj4jrq%40steph

There is a patch pending, and we just need to decide what is best to do
for 2.3.0.


As far as I understand it, Enrico's patch is a revertion. THis means 
that it probably re-introduce the bug with displaying $\not=$.


We have to understand what really happens. I tried a bit last week, to 
no avail.



What is your feeling on how stable our 2.3.x branch currently is? I have
the feeling that it is quite stable and that we should now make plans
for the next step in the release process. I propose to make the final
2.3.0 release in about two weeks. What are your thoughts? Should we make
a rc3 release? Should we wait longer than two weeks?


I'd say we should release soon and be ready to have a quick 2.3.1 if needed.


I'm planning to be more strict now on which bug fixes go in for 2.3.0. I
might prefer that even a simple bug fix not be committed, unless it
fixes an important bug.


Sure.

JMarc

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-10 Thread Scott Kostyshak 
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 07:28:01PM +, Joel Kulesza wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Scott Kostyshak  wrote:
> 
> > One pending issue is that we appear to have broken the pixmap cache
> > (compared to 2.2.3). We are considering not fixing it and instead
> > ignoring the preference since we have no reason to believe that the
> > preference is useful anymore.
> 
> 
> The only comment I have is that a crash may be causable if the preference
> is ignored rather than disabled (see
> https://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg203649.html).
> Disabling the checkbox removes the ability to reproduce.

Sorry for not being clear. When I put "ignore" the preference, I was
referring to LyX's internal behavior. Wherever we have in the code
something like "take into account whether the preference is set to this
or that" we would change to be the current behavior of what happens when
the pixmap cache preferences is not set to no. As for the GUI behavior,
whether we disable the preference in LyX's Preferences GUI (here
"disable" takes on the Qt meaning of showing as greyed out), or whether
we remove the option from the GUI completely (e.g. by making it
invisible), is a separate issue.

If you would like to discuss either the LyX internal code behavior or
the GUI behavior, let's do so on that thread so that we have everything
in one place.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-10 Thread Joel Kulesza 
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Scott Kostyshak  wrote:

> One pending issue is that we appear to have broken the pixmap cache
> (compared to 2.2.3). We are considering not fixing it and instead
> ignoring the preference since we have no reason to believe that the
> preference is useful anymore.


The only comment I have is that a crash may be causable if the preference
is ignored rather than disabled (see
https://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg203649.html).
Disabling the checkbox removes the ability to reproduce.

Otherwise, I have no comment on stability concerns.

Re: Plan for final steps of 2.3.0 release

2018-02-10 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller 
Am Samstag, den 10.02.2018, 13:51 -0500 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> Am I missing any other potential blocker?

I'm not aware of any.

> What is your feeling on how stable our 2.3.x branch currently is? 

I think it is stable enough to be released. I use it for daily work for
quite some time now, and I don't have the impression it is less stable
than 2.2.4dev. In any case, it seems to be in quite a good shape.

> I have
> the feeling that it is quite stable and that we should now make plans
> for the next step in the release process. I propose to make the final
> 2.3.0 release in about two weeks. What are your thoughts? Should we
> make
> a rc3 release? 

No.

> Should we wait longer than two weeks?

No.

> I'm planning to be more strict now on which bug fixes go in for
> 2.3.0. I
> might prefer that even a simple bug fix not be committed, unless it
> fixes an important bug.

Good plan. Even the critical bugs I have fixed recently are known for
years, so they could certainly wait for some more time.

Jürgen

> Before making any decision, I will wait until at least Monday for
> feedback on the above thoughts, in case some LyX devs have better
> things
> to do on the weekend than to check LyX emails.
> 
> Scott

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part