On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 09:55:29PM +0300, Dov Feldstern wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Dov Feldstern wrote:
So far, though, these two patches have mostly been ignored --- a few
people have responded, but not many.
You're not ignored. I agree that these patches should be considered, but
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 21:26:09 Dov Feldstern wrote:
I see that rsplit is new in 2.4... Are we officially requiring python2.4
for lyx2lyx, or is this just an oversight?
Oversight, we require python 2.3. I will fix this as well as the other cases.
--
José Abílio
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:17:47AM +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 21:26:09 Dov Feldstern wrote:
I see that rsplit is new in 2.4... Are we officially requiring python2.4
for lyx2lyx, or is this just an oversight?
Oversight, we require python 2.3. I will fix this as well
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 09:55:29PM +0300, Dov Feldstern wrote:
> Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > Dov Feldstern wrote:
> >> So far, though, these two patches have mostly been ignored --- a few
> >> people have responded, but not many.
> > You're not ignored. I agree that these patches should be
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 21:26:09 Dov Feldstern wrote:
> I see that rsplit is new in 2.4... Are we officially requiring python2.4
> for lyx2lyx, or is this just an oversight?
Oversight, we require python 2.3. I will fix this as well as the other cases.
--
José Abílio
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:17:47AM +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 July 2007 21:26:09 Dov Feldstern wrote:
> > I see that rsplit is new in 2.4... Are we officially requiring python2.4
> > for lyx2lyx, or is this just an oversight?
>
> Oversight, we require python 2.3. I will fix this
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Dov Feldstern wrote:
So far, though, these two patches have mostly been ignored --- a few
people have responded, but not many.
You're not ignored. I agree that these patches should be considered, but I
don't understand the stuff enough to comment (and I'm too busy
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
While I agree with you, I also agree with Dov that we should branch 1.5
now...
I'm not opposed to that, but it's up to José.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
While I agree with you, I also agree with Dov that we should branch 1.5
now...
I'm not opposed to that, but it's up to José.
Well, as the baby is supposed to land in your hand very soon now (how
many time I said this? ;-)) I think your
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 07:26:09 Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I'm not opposed to that, but it's up to José.
Well, as the baby is supposed to land in your hand very soon now (how
many time I said this? ;-)) I think your opinion matters.
Jose?
I think that we should branch after releasing
José Matos wrote:
After setting on bug 1820 I think the only remaining show stopper is 3613.
What's the status of the lyx2lyx issues?
Jürgen
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 11:28:19 Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
What's the status of the lyx2lyx issues?
I think that are quite near to get to a good solution.
Since the code deals with retroversion I will place the code in svn and then
ask people to test it. This code had a lot of testing so
José Matos wrote:
I think that are quite near to get to a good solution.
great!
Jürgen
José Matos wrote:
Since the code deals with retroversion I will place the code in svn and
then ask people to test it. This code had a lot of testing so I think it is
near public consumption. :-)
Things are much better now. We have only one issue left with (some) combining
characters. I think
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Dov Feldstern wrote:
So far, though, these two patches have mostly been ignored --- a few
people have responded, but not many.
You're not ignored. I agree that these patches should be considered, but I
don't understand the stuff enough to comment (and I'm too busy
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Since the code deals with retroversion I will place the code in svn and
then ask people to test it. This code had a lot of testing so I think it is
near public consumption. :-)
Things are much better now. We have only one issue left with (some)
Dov Feldstern wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Since the code deals with retroversion I will place the code in svn and
then ask people to test it. This code had a lot of testing so I think
it is
near public consumption. :-)
Things are much better now. We have only one
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Dov Feldstern wrote:
So far, though, these two patches have mostly been ignored --- a few
people have responded, but not many.
You're not ignored. I agree that these patches should be considered, but I
don't understand the stuff enough to comment (and I'm too busy
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> While I agree with you, I also agree with Dov that we should branch 1.5
> now...
I'm not opposed to that, but it's up to José.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
While I agree with you, I also agree with Dov that we should branch 1.5
now...
I'm not opposed to that, but it's up to José.
Well, as the baby is supposed to land in your hand very soon now (how
many time I said this? ;-)) I think your
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 07:26:09 Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > I'm not opposed to that, but it's up to José.
>
> Well, as the baby is supposed to land in your hand very soon now (how
> many time I said this? ;-)) I think your opinion matters.
>
> Jose?
I think that we should branch after
José Matos wrote:
> After setting on bug 1820 I think the only remaining show stopper is 3613.
What's the status of the lyx2lyx issues?
Jürgen
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 11:28:19 Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> What's the status of the lyx2lyx issues?
I think that are quite near to get to a good solution.
Since the code deals with retroversion I will place the code in svn and then
ask people to test it. This code had a lot of testing
José Matos wrote:
> I think that are quite near to get to a good solution.
great!
Jürgen
José Matos wrote:
> Since the code deals with retroversion I will place the code in svn and
> then ask people to test it. This code had a lot of testing so I think it is
> near public consumption. :-)
Things are much better now. We have only one issue left with (some) combining
characters. I
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Dov Feldstern wrote:
So far, though, these two patches have mostly been ignored --- a few
people have responded, but not many.
You're not ignored. I agree that these patches should be considered, but I
don't understand the stuff enough to comment (and I'm too busy
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Since the code deals with retroversion I will place the code in svn and
then ask people to test it. This code had a lot of testing so I think it is
near public consumption. :-)
Things are much better now. We have only one issue left with (some)
Dov Feldstern wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Since the code deals with retroversion I will place the code in svn and
then ask people to test it. This code had a lot of testing so I think
it is
near public consumption. :-)
Things are much better now. We have only one
Hi!
I've spent an enormous amount of time on getting these two bugs fixed
for 1.5.0, since we realized that they involve format changes. I think I
deserve to have them applied and tested, even if it means postponing the
release for a week or two. I already suggested how we can do this
Dov Feldstern wrote:
I've spent an enormous amount of time on getting these two bugs fixed
for 1.5.0, since we realized that they involve format changes. I think
I deserve to have them applied and tested, even if it means postponing
the release for a week or two. I already suggested how we can
Dov Feldstern wrote:
So far, though, these two patches have mostly been ignored --- a few
people have responded, but not many.
You're not ignored. I agree that these patches should be considered, but I
don't understand the stuff enough to comment (and I'm too busy for testing).
I think you
Hi!
I've spent an enormous amount of time on getting these two bugs fixed
for 1.5.0, since we realized that they involve format changes. I think I
deserve to have them applied and tested, even if it means postponing the
release for a week or two. I already suggested how we can do this
Dov Feldstern wrote:
I've spent an enormous amount of time on getting these two bugs fixed
for 1.5.0, since we realized that they involve format changes. I think
I deserve to have them applied and tested, even if it means postponing
the release for a week or two. I already suggested how we can
Dov Feldstern wrote:
> So far, though, these two patches have mostly been ignored --- a few
> people have responded, but not many.
You're not ignored. I agree that these patches should be considered, but I
don't understand the stuff enough to comment (and I'm too busy for testing).
I think you
34 matches
Mail list logo
