Re: r36189 - in lyx-devel/trunk: lib/layouts src/insets

everybody around has its own goal and its nothing wrong with it. If so, why do we then discuss such issues? Several developers proposed to reintroduce the term ERT. Fine, that means to change the menus, design a new toolbar button, revise all docs and Wiki-pages. I am not sure whether I am

Re: RefStyle Patch

On 11/08/2010 02:52 PM, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote: Richard Heckrgheckat comcast.net writes: The problem, as you say, is that refstyle and prettyref do not use the same prefix for chapters, and refstyle actually uses part for parts. So whichever we choose seems as if it will cause problems

Re: [texhax] LyX for Windows screen reader usability

On Nov 9, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Paul Stanley wrote: I appreciate this may not be strictly on-topic but I think it's useful information to others in my position. LyX-1.6 (for Windows) is, in short, unusable with a screen reader. Unfortunately, that's a consequence of the programming GUI toolkit

Re: RefStyle Patch

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes lasgouttes at lyx.org writes: Le 28 oct. 10 à 18:24, Jean-Pierre Chrétien a écrit : Is there some way we could provide translatability (in LyX's po files) of theorem here? For the time being, we need a restricted set of declarations and translations in LyX

Re: [texhax] LyX for Windows screen reader usability

Le 10/11/2010 16:09, William Adams a écrit : On Nov 9, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Paul Stanley wrote: I appreciate this may not be strictly on-topic but I think it's useful information to others in my position. LyX-1.6 (for Windows) is, in short, unusable with a screen reader. Unfortunately, that's

Re: [texhax] LyX for Windows screen reader usability

On Nov 10, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: could you be more precise about what is needed in order to be usable with a screen reader? I guess that the fact that we draw the screen by ourselves is a show stopper. AIUI, one has to use native window-creation calls and tools so

Re: r36170 - lyx-devel/trunk

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 06:09:08PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:48:29AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: The 100% cpu for when previewing is fixed now. (Maybe a bug in the Buffer function). Hmm... I don't see any difference, LyX behaves exactly as described before.

Re: RefStyle Patch

Richard Heck rgheck at comcast.net writes: I think part and chap are the way to go, but I think we can actually do it without any lyx2lyx and so avoid breaking customized prettyref stuff, such as Jurgen has. New labels will be chap by default, but we can do this: \let\pr at chap=\pr

ANNOUNCE: LyX version 2.0.0 (beta 1)

Pre-release of LyX version 2.0.0 (beta 1) == We are pleased to announce the first public pre-release of LyX 2.0.0. Development moved to the beta phase which basically means we will no more include new features and focus on polishing the current ones. We

Re: RefStyle Patch

On 11/10/2010 11:08 AM, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote: Richard Heckrgheckat comcast.net writes: I think part and chap are the way to go, but I think we can actually do it without any lyx2lyx and so avoid breaking customized prettyref stuff, such as Jurgen has. New labels will be chap by

[patch] Single Instance LyX

Hi all, These two patches implement a single instance LyX. I can add some preference options. - What kind of preference do we need ? - Do we want to include the code for QtSingleApplication in our tree ? - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib and should be included in the installers. - The

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

These two patches implement a single instance LyX. Comments ? Pavel, Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? Vincent

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/10/2010 12:14 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi all, These two patches implement a single instance LyX. Nice work! I can add some preference options. - What kind of preference do we need ? A preference to enable or disable this kind of behavior. So: if

Re: Automatic Testing

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Does anyone have an idea on how to set up the automatic testing for LyX? - Shall I make a directory lyx-devel/tests/ ? firstly, _what_ is going to be tested? we already have few tests done via

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:21:52PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: These two patches implement a single instance LyX. Comments ? Pavel, Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. -- Enrico

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Pavel, Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). Vincent

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. -- Enrico

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/b985f653c03ad9dbf77c9e3dadf9f6d3eeaba8ae http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/8edf37e21bfbbae23e87210b959ef9dfe5e8e81c or find them attached to the bug:

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Op 10-11-2010 20:14, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/b985f653c03ad9dbf77c9e3dadf9f6d3eeaba8ae http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/8edf37e21bfbbae23e87210b959ef9dfe5e8e81c or find

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. We can maybe rewrite it to use pipes. Or we can rewrite the piped code to

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:13:48PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Pavel, Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg163211.html

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg163211.html Development moved to the beta phase which basically means we will no more include new features and focus on polishing the current ones. basically leaves room for

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:17:11PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature.

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:21:37PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg163211.html Development moved to the beta phase which basically means we will no more include new features and focus

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. We can maybe rewrite

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency.

Congratulations on the release, and a hale and hearty thank you for all the hard work.

Hi there to all the devs, I've been a LyX user for some time - since my honours thesis, many years ago. I would like to offer my warmest thanks to all the hard work from the dev team over the years building this magnificent product - LaTeX for the rest of us, indeed. You are a talented,

Re: r36170 - lyx-devel/trunk

On 10.11.2010 16:46, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 06:09:08PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:48:29AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: The 100% cpu for when previewing is fixed now. (Maybe a bug in the Buffer function). Hmm... I don't see any

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Enrico Forestieri wrote: Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. i would like to know whats going on behind this. you dont like that 1. we push new features 2. this feature is evil or 3. the implementation of this feature is not your taste?

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency.

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - What kind of preference do we need ? [ ] use single instance for all windows i would vote for letting this off by default. - Do we want to include the code for QtSingleApplication in our tree ? - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib and should be included in

Re: Automatic Testing

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - Shall I make a directory lyx-devel/tests/ ? firstly, _what_ is going to be tested? we already have few tests done via 'make check' Well, for example for the class Buffer. What happens if an error occurs, does the code return the correct error ? Does it

Re: r36170 - lyx-devel/trunk

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:39:14PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: r36235: Isn't it enough to move the gv_-processingThreadStarted() call? I think it is cleaner to clearly show what is the code which is not used. And I still wonder why you use Qt 4.2. Is this the latest version shipped by cygwin?

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:09:01AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: Enrico Forestieri wrote: Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. i would like to know whats going on behind this. you dont like that 1. we push new features Yes, especially

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:14:11AM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van

Re: Automatic Testing

On Wednesday 10 November 2010 23:41:31 Pavel Sanda wrote: the last movements in lyx2lyx and logs full of 'thinko' string do not support this theory :) actually i'm curious what will happen to this code once we switch to python3. pavel If you bring the promised tests on board the transition

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Enrico Forestieri wrote: I think no, if we follow the rules. i would like to know whats going on behind this. you dont like that 1. we push new features Yes, especially not when by the rules they would be basically forbidden. thats misunderstanding. release announcement is public

Re: Congratulations on the release, and a hale and hearty thank you for all the hard work.

Sean Cohen wrote: Hi there to all the devs, I've been a LyX user for some time - since my honours thesis, many years ago. I would like to offer my warmest thanks to all the hard work from the dev team over the years building this magnificent product - LaTeX for the rest of us, indeed.

Re: r36189 - in lyx-devel/trunk: lib/layouts src/insets

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: I am not sure whether I am counted among the several developers but for the reconrd my proposal as it stands is: add in the section about TeX Code a paragraph about the term ERT, along with an index entry. i would support this. pavel

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

There's already code that checks for an existing lyxpipe. If another instance of lyx is connected to the other end, a message is printed to that effect, otherwise it is a stale pipe (maybe a left over from a previous crash) and is removed. So, instead of printing a message to the console,

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:48AM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I'd like you to guide me a bit in with respect to using the pipes then. Detecting whether a pipe exists is indeed easy. However, I need to add some public functions to the Server interface that relays to LyXComm. Moreover,

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:38:27AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: Enrico Forestieri wrote: I think no, if we follow the rules. i would like to know whats going on behind this. you dont like that 1. we push new features Yes, especially not when by the rules they would be basically

Re: Congratulations on the release, and a hale and hearty thank you for all the hard work.

If you are ever in Sydney then give me a call! Cheers, Sean. * * * * * * * * * * * Sean Cohen (Project Manager) BCS Innovations P: +61 (0)2 9420 3400 F: +61 (0)2 9420 3411 M: +61 (0)412 441 263 E: sco...@bcsinnovations.com.au W: www.bcsinnovations.com.au Sydney Office (Sales -

Re: r36170 - lyx-devel/trunk

On 11.11.2010 00:51, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:39:14PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: r36235: Isn't it enough to move the gv_-processingThreadStarted() call? I think it is cleaner to clearly show what is the code which is not used. And I still wonder why you use Qt

Re: instructions for upgrade from LyX 1.6.7 to 2.0 beta 1?

Am 11.11.2010 um 07:42 schrieb Justin Wood: Hi gang. As LyX 2.0 beta 1 is now released, I thought I'd make the switch over (OS X 10.6). Hi Justin, good to have brave users who are going to test beta release of LyX 2.0. But it's beta and not clear exactly when the release will happen. So I

Re: r36189 - in lyx-devel/trunk: lib/layouts src/insets

everybody around has its own goal and its nothing wrong with it. If so, why do we then discuss such issues? Several developers proposed to reintroduce the term ERT. Fine, that means to change the menus, design a new toolbar button, revise all docs and Wiki-pages. I am not sure whether I am

Re: RefStyle Patch

On 11/08/2010 02:52 PM, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote: Richard Heck writes: The problem, as you say, is that refstyle and prettyref do not use the same prefix for chapters, and refstyle actually uses "part" for parts. So whichever we choose seems as if it will cause problems

Re: [texhax] LyX for Windows screen reader usability

On Nov 9, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Paul Stanley wrote: > I appreciate this may not be strictly on-topic but I think it's useful > information to others in my position. > LyX-1.6 (for Windows) is, in short, unusable with a screen reader. Unfortunately, that's a consequence of the programming GUI

Re: RefStyle Patch

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes lyx.org> writes: > > Le 28 oct. 10 à 18:24, Jean-Pierre Chrétien a écrit : > >> Is there some way we could provide translatability (in LyX's po > >> files) of "theorem" here? > > > > For the time being, we need a restricted set of declarations and > > translations > >

Re: [texhax] LyX for Windows screen reader usability

Le 10/11/2010 16:09, William Adams a écrit : On Nov 9, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Paul Stanley wrote: I appreciate this may not be strictly on-topic but I think it's useful information to others in my position. LyX-1.6 (for Windows) is, in short, unusable with a screen reader. Unfortunately, that's

Re: [texhax] LyX for Windows screen reader usability

On Nov 10, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > could you be more precise about what is needed in order to be usable with a > screen reader? I guess that the fact that we draw the screen by ourselves is > a show stopper. AIUI, one has to use native window-creation calls and tools

Re: r36170 - lyx-devel/trunk

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 06:09:08PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:48:29AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: > > The 100% cpu for when previewing is fixed now. (Maybe a bug in the Buffer > > function). > > Hmm... I don't see any difference, LyX behaves exactly as described

Re: RefStyle Patch

Richard Heck comcast.net> writes: > I think "part" and "chap" are the way to go, but I think we can actually > do it without any lyx2lyx and so avoid breaking customized prettyref > stuff, such as Jurgen has. New labels will be "chap" by default, but we > can do this: > \let\pr

ANNOUNCE: LyX version 2.0.0 (beta 1)

Pre-release of LyX version 2.0.0 (beta 1) == We are pleased to announce the first public pre-release of LyX 2.0.0. Development moved to the beta phase which basically means we will no more include new features and focus on polishing the current ones. We

Re: RefStyle Patch

On 11/10/2010 11:08 AM, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote: Richard Heck writes: I think "part" and "chap" are the way to go, but I think we can actually do it without any lyx2lyx and so avoid breaking customized prettyref stuff, such as Jurgen has. New labels will be "chap" by

[patch] Single Instance LyX

Hi all, These two patches implement a single instance LyX. I can add some preference options. - What kind of preference do we need ? - Do we want to include the code for QtSingleApplication in our tree ? - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib and should be included in the installers. - The

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

> These two patches implement a single instance LyX. > > > Comments ? > Pavel, Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? Vincent

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/10/2010 12:14 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi all, These two patches implement a single instance LyX. Nice work! I can add some preference options. - What kind of preference do we need ? A preference to enable or disable this kind of behavior. So: if

Re: Automatic Testing

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: >> Does anyone have an idea on how to set up the automatic testing for LyX? >> >> - Shall I make a directory lyx-devel/tests/ ? > > firstly, _what_ is going to be tested? > we already have few tests

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:21:52PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > These two patches implement a single instance LyX. > > > > > > Comments ? > > > > > Pavel, > > Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? I think no, if we follow the rules. -- Enrico

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

>> >> Pavel, >> >> Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? > > I think no, if we follow the rules. > I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). Vincent

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. -- Enrico

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/b985f653c03ad9dbf77c9e3dadf9f6d3eeaba8ae > http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/8edf37e21bfbbae23e87210b959ef9dfe5e8e81c > > or find them attached to the bug: >

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Op 10-11-2010 20:14, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/b985f653c03ad9dbf77c9e3dadf9f6d3eeaba8ae http://www.gitorious.com/lyx/lyx/commit/8edf37e21bfbbae23e87210b959ef9dfe5e8e81c or find

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. We can maybe rewrite it to use pipes. Or we can rewrite the piped code to

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:13:48PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >> > >> Pavel, > >> > >> Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? > > > > I think no, if we follow the rules. > > > > I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;).

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg163211.html >Development moved to the beta phase which basically means we will no more include new features and focus on polishing the current ones. "basically" leaves room for

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:17:11PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: > >On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >>- We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib > >YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:21:37PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > >>I thought that the rule was to ask Pavel ;). > >http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg163211.html > > > > >Development moved to the beta phase which basically means we will > no more include new

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib YA dependency. This is bad for a next to useless feature. We can maybe rewrite

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: > >>On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >>>- We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib > >>YA

Congratulations on the release, and a hale and hearty thank you for all the hard work.

Hi there to all the devs, I've been a LyX user for some time - since my honours thesis, many years ago. I would like to offer my warmest thanks to all the hard work from the dev team over the years building this magnificent product - LaTeX for the rest of us, indeed. You are a talented,

Re: r36170 - lyx-devel/trunk

On 10.11.2010 16:46, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 06:09:08PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:48:29AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: >>> The 100% cpu for when previewing is fixed now. (Maybe a bug in the Buffer >>> function). >> >> Hmm... I don't see

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? > > I think no, if we follow the rules. i would like to know whats going on behind this. you dont like that 1. we push new features 2. this feature is evil or 3. the implementation of this feature is not your

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: > >>On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >>>- We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib > >>YA

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > - What kind of preference do we need ? [ ] use single instance for all windows i would vote for letting this off by default. > - Do we want to include the code for QtSingleApplication in our tree ? > - We then depend on QtNetwork.dll/lib and should be included

Re: Automatic Testing

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >> - Shall I make a directory lyx-devel/tests/ ? > > > > firstly, _what_ is going to be tested? > > we already have few tests done via 'make check' > > Well, for example for the class Buffer. What happens if an error > occurs, does the code return the correct error

Re: r36170 - lyx-devel/trunk

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:39:14PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: > r36235: Isn't it enough to move the gv_->processingThreadStarted() call? I think it is cleaner to clearly show what is the code which is not used. > And I still wonder why you use Qt 4.2. Is this the latest version > shipped by

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:09:01AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > Do you think it has a chance to make it into 2.0.0 ? > > > > I think no, if we follow the rules. > > i would like to know whats going on behind this. > you dont like that > 1. we push new features Yes,

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:14:11AM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:10:07PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > > On 11/10/2010 02:17 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > Op 10-11-2010 20:13, Enrico Forestieri schreef: > > >>On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Vincent van

Re: Automatic Testing

On Wednesday 10 November 2010 23:41:31 Pavel Sanda wrote: > the last movements in lyx2lyx and logs full of 'thinko' string do not > support this theory :) actually i'm curious what will happen to this code > once we switch to python3. > > pavel If you bring the promised tests on board the

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > I think no, if we follow the rules. > > > > i would like to know whats going on behind this. > > you dont like that > > 1. we push new features > > Yes, especially not when by the rules they would be "basically" forbidden. thats misunderstanding. release

Re: Congratulations on the release, and a hale and hearty thank you for all the hard work.

Sean Cohen wrote: > Hi there to all the devs, > > I've been a LyX user for some time - since my honours thesis, many years > ago. I would like to offer my warmest thanks to all the hard work from the > dev team over the years building this magnificent product - LaTeX for the > rest of us,

Re: r36189 - in lyx-devel/trunk: lib/layouts src/insets

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > I am not sure whether I am counted among the "several developers" but > for the reconrd my proposal as it stands is: add in the section about > TeX Code a paragraph about the term ERT, along with an index entry. i would support this. pavel

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

> There's already code that checks for an existing lyxpipe. If another > instance of lyx is connected to the other end, a message is printed > to that effect, otherwise it is a stale pipe (maybe a left over from > a previous crash) and is removed. > > So, instead of printing a message to the

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:48AM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > I'd like you to guide me a bit in with respect to using the pipes > then. Detecting whether a pipe exists is indeed easy. However, I need > to add some public functions to the Server interface that relays to > LyXComm.

Re: [patch] Single Instance LyX

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:38:27AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > > I think no, if we follow the rules. > > > > > > i would like to know whats going on behind this. > > > you dont like that > > > 1. we push new features > > > > Yes, especially not when by the rules

Re: Congratulations on the release, and a hale and hearty thank you for all the hard work.

If you are ever in Sydney then give me a call! Cheers, Sean. * * * * * * * * * * * Sean Cohen (Project Manager) BCS Innovations P: +61 (0)2 9420 3400 F: +61 (0)2 9420 3411 M: +61 (0)412 441 263 E: sco...@bcsinnovations.com.au W: www.bcsinnovations.com.au Sydney Office (Sales -

Re: r36170 - lyx-devel/trunk

On 11.11.2010 00:51, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:39:14PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> r36235: Isn't it enough to move the gv_->processingThreadStarted() call? > > I think it is cleaner to clearly show what is the code which is not used. > >> And I still wonder why you

Re: instructions for upgrade from LyX 1.6.7 to 2.0 beta 1?

Am 11.11.2010 um 07:42 schrieb Justin Wood: > Hi gang. As LyX 2.0 beta 1 is now released, I thought I'd make the switch > over (OS X 10.6). Hi Justin, good to have brave users who are going to test beta release of LyX 2.0. But it's beta and not clear exactly when the release will happen. So I