Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: I thought my apathy would be enough to have Juergen do it, but he won. I'm making progress, you know ... Jürgen

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > I thought my apathy would be enough to have Juergen do it, but he won. I'm making progress, you know ... Jürgen

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 29 mars 10 à 00:58, Pavel Sanda a écrit : Pavel Sanda wrote: I'll go through the enh bugs with 2.0 target and leave only those which are really to be included. For this I need somebody create two new milestones in trac for postponing - 2.1.0 2.0.1. ding ding dong dong ;) Done. I

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 29 mars 10 à 00:58, Pavel Sanda a écrit : Pavel Sanda wrote: I'll go through the enh bugs with 2.0 target and leave only those which are really to be included. For this I need somebody create two new milestones in trac for postponing - 2.1.0 & 2.0.1. ding ding dong dong ;) Done. I

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 23:39, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : The problem is that it modifies stuff outside of the cell itself. Such as? Vincent made the same argument but I fail to see where this is true. For longtable, we iterate through the rows and the collumns to see if header of firstheader is set.

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 23:39, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : The problem is that it modifies stuff outside of the cell itself. Such as? Vincent made the same argument but I fail to see where this is true. For longtable, we iterate through the rows and the collumns to see if header of firstheader is set.

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/09/2010 10:47 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 09/03/2010 20:11, Pavel Sanda a écrit : ah, thats part of the AtPoint discussion... unfortunately there seems to be no easy fix right now. Just cerate inset-type change to replace the uses of inset-modify... Well this whole issue is

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/10/2010 03:00 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 03/09/2010 10:47 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 09/03/2010 20:11, Pavel Sanda a écrit : ah, thats part of the AtPoint discussion... unfortunately there seems to be no easy fix right now. Just cerate inset-type change to replace the

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 13:33, rgheck a écrit : On 03/10/2010 03:00 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: I still think this is a good move because I really don't like to have to create a new LFUN for each and every inset. Also because when the use of user defined insets can be generalized then inset-modify could

RE: LyX 2.0 release plan

If the issue is that InsetTabular thinks it has to have the cursor inside it to apply the LFUN, can't we change how that works? I.e., can't we move the cursor in there, or re-write the routine so it doesn't need to assume that? Hmm, what is the particular bug we want to fix here? Jmarc

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 09:00, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : Well this whole issue is because I made the opposite change... I still think this is a good move because I really don't like to have to create a new LFUN for each and every inset. Also because when the use of user defined insets can be generalized

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 13:52, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW a écrit : The one below: other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. But this one is fixed now, isn't it? I mean, we worked around it :)

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 10/03/2010 23:14, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/03/2010 13:52, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW a écrit : The one below: other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. But this one is fixed

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 23:15, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : But this one is fixed now, isn't it? I mean, we worked around it :) Yes, Edwin did. And I also did something similar in InsetMathGrid IIRC. OK, thanks. JMarc

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 10/03/2010 23:09, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/03/2010 09:00, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : Well this whole issue is because I made the opposite change... I still think this is a good move because I really don't like to have to create a new LFUN for each and every inset. Also because when

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 23:20, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : Well, it does modify the inset so it's OK to have it in there. But I agree about the distinction beween inset-modify and inset-params-modify. Basically inset-modify should be about modifying the content (and can depend on the Cursor position) and

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 10/03/2010 23:27, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/03/2010 23:20, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : Well, it does modify the inset so it's OK to have it in there. But I agree about the distinction beween inset-modify and inset-params-modify. Basically inset-modify should be about modifying the

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/09/2010 10:47 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 09/03/2010 20:11, Pavel Sanda a écrit : ah, thats part of the AtPoint discussion... unfortunately there seems to be no easy fix right now. Just cerate inset-type change to replace the uses of inset-modify... Well this whole issue is

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/10/2010 03:00 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 03/09/2010 10:47 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 09/03/2010 20:11, Pavel Sanda a écrit : ah, thats part of the AtPoint discussion... unfortunately there seems to be no easy fix right now. Just cerate inset-type change to replace the

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 13:33, rgheck a écrit : On 03/10/2010 03:00 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: I still think this is a good move because I really don't like to have to create a new LFUN for each and every inset. Also because when the use of user defined insets can be generalized then inset-modify could

RE: LyX 2.0 release plan

>> If the issue is that InsetTabular thinks it has to have the cursor >> inside it to apply the LFUN, can't we change how that works? I.e., >> can't we move the cursor in there, or re-write the routine so it >> doesn't need to assume that? > >Hmm, what is the particular bug we want to fix

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 09:00, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : Well this whole issue is because I made the opposite change... I still think this is a good move because I really don't like to have to create a new LFUN for each and every inset. Also because when the use of user defined insets can be generalized

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 13:52, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW a écrit : The one below: other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. But this one is fixed now, isn't it? I mean, we worked around it :)

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 10/03/2010 23:14, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/03/2010 13:52, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW a écrit : The one below: other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. But this one is fixed

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 23:15, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : But this one is fixed now, isn't it? I mean, we worked around it :) Yes, Edwin did. And I also did something similar in InsetMathGrid IIRC. OK, thanks. JMarc

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 10/03/2010 23:09, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/03/2010 09:00, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : Well this whole issue is because I made the opposite change... I still think this is a good move because I really don't like to have to create a new LFUN for each and every inset. Also because when

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 10/03/2010 23:20, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : Well, it does modify the inset so it's OK to have it in there. But I agree about the distinction beween inset-modify and inset-params-modify. Basically inset-modify should be about modifying the content (and can depend on the Cursor position) and

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 10/03/2010 23:27, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/03/2010 23:20, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : Well, it does modify the inset so it's OK to have it in there. But I agree about the distinction beween inset-modify and inset-params-modify. Basically inset-modify should be about modifying the

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at all). I think this is a pretty nasty bug. any news about this one? No. But I think this one is also due to the buffer cloning. Jürgen

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/09/2010 04:11 PM, rgheck wrote: On 03/09/2010 10:07 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at all). I think this is a pretty nasty bug. any news about this one? No. But I think this one is also due to the

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. table guys? Ed, Uwe? pavel

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/09/2010 10:07 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at all). I think this is a pretty nasty bug. any news about this one? No. But I think this one is also due to the buffer cloning.

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at all). I think this is a pretty nasty bug. any news about this one? pavel

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. table guys? Ed, Uwe? because with the cursor in front of a tabular, 'inset' in the code

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/09/2010 01:59 PM, Edwin Leuven wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. table guys? Ed, Uwe? because with the cursor

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Edwin Leuven wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. table guys? Ed, Uwe? because with the cursor in front of a tabular,

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

rgheck wrote: Do we need then to remove the AtPoint feature from whatever LFUN this is? i think we can't because it is LFUN_INSET_MODIFY What that means is precisely: You can apply this LFUN when not in the inset but in front of it. but for tabular functions the cursor need to be in the

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/09/2010 02:12 PM, Edwin Leuven wrote: rgheck wrote: Do we need then to remove the AtPoint feature from whatever LFUN this is? i think we can't because it is LFUN_INSET_MODIFY Ah, yes. That issue. rh

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 09/03/2010 20:11, Pavel Sanda a écrit : ah, thats part of the AtPoint discussion... unfortunately there seems to be no easy fix right now. Just cerate inset-type change to replace the uses of inset-modify... For some reason I do not manage to get svn access here. It is a pity since

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at > > > all). I think this is a pretty nasty bug. > > any news about this one? No. But I think this one is also due to the buffer cloning. Jürgen

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/09/2010 04:11 PM, rgheck wrote: On 03/09/2010 10:07 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at all). I think this is a pretty nasty bug. any news about this one? No. But I think this one is also due to the

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: > >other bug you would like to see killed? > > Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all > lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. table guys? Ed, Uwe? pavel

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/09/2010 10:07 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at all). I think this is a pretty nasty bug. any news about this one? No. But I think this one is also due to the buffer cloning.

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: > Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > other bug you would like to see killed? > > > > The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at all). I > > think this is a pretty nasty bug. any news about this one? pavel

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. table guys? Ed, Uwe? because with the cursor in front of a tabular, 'inset' in the code

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/09/2010 01:59 PM, Edwin Leuven wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. table guys? Ed, Uwe? because with the cursor

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Edwin Leuven wrote: > Pavel Sanda wrote: >> Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? >>> Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all >>> lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. >> table guys? Ed, Uwe? > > because with the cursor in front

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

rgheck wrote: Do we need then to remove the AtPoint feature from whatever LFUN this is? i think we can't because it is LFUN_INSET_MODIFY What that means is precisely: You can apply this LFUN when not in the inset but in front of it. but for tabular functions the cursor need to be in the

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/09/2010 02:12 PM, Edwin Leuven wrote: rgheck wrote: Do we need then to remove the AtPoint feature from whatever LFUN this is? i think we can't because it is LFUN_INSET_MODIFY Ah, yes. That issue. rh

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 09/03/2010 20:11, Pavel Sanda a écrit : ah, thats part of the AtPoint discussion... unfortunately there seems to be no easy fix right now. Just cerate inset-type change to replace the uses of inset-modify... For some reason I do not manage to get svn access here. It is a pity since

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/08/2010 01:19 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: tarball creation is already fixed, monolithic builds checked, short work with trunk didn't revealed any drastic problems and currently i monitor two ugly bugs: - Richard fixed crash #6522, but the price is that outliner doesn't

RE: LyX 2.0 release plan

other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. Vincent

RE: LyX 2.0 release plan

other bug you would like to see killed? The outline doesn't work anymore. Vincent

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/08/2010 08:18 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? The outline doesn't work anymore. That's due to my fix for the outliner crash. Now it doesn't crash but doesn't work, either. See also the Export Crash thread. There are serious

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 06/03/2010 19:04, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : * There has been some work on dispatch results, but I have no idea whats the current status. JMarc? There are already filled bugs around dispatch. Concerning the DispatchResult stuff, I have to admit I do not know what the status is :) I think

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/08/2010 01:19 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: tarball creation is already fixed, monolithic builds checked, short work with trunk didn't revealed any drastic problems and currently i monitor two ugly bugs: - Richard fixed crash #6522, but the price is that outliner doesn't

RE: LyX 2.0 release plan

>other bug you would like to see killed? Insert a table, put the cursor in front of the table, press set all lines on the table toolbar.. Crash. Vincent

RE: LyX 2.0 release plan

> other bug you would like to see killed? The outline doesn't work anymore. Vincent

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 03/08/2010 08:18 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? The outline doesn't work anymore. That's due to my "fix" for the outliner crash. Now it doesn't crash but doesn't work, either. See also the "Export Crash" thread. There are serious

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Le 06/03/2010 19:04, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : * There has been some work on dispatch results, but I have no idea whats the current status. JMarc? There are already filled bugs around dispatch. Concerning the DispatchResult stuff, I have to admit I do not know what the status is :) I think

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Abdelrazak Younes wrote: For the packagers we need some summary what are the recommended dependencies. Haven't been closely following this stuff - could somebody write some summary of all those spellcheck (a/i/hun/spell) and thesaurus deps into RELEASE-NOTES? Juergen, Abdel?

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Jürgen has much better writing skills than me :-P Very transparent trial. But I'll do it. Done. Please check if everything is correct. Jürgen

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Is there some cost to leaving the old code in until e.g. #6516 is fixed? No, we can leave it if this is a blocker of course. actually it would fine if you could look before alpha on this particular one. pavel

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: * Advanced Search - as far as I can see all wanted features finished, Tommaso? at least the simple usage scenarios are ok . . . I expect lot of bug reports here though, we need to wait on users testing. . . . though, I expect bugs to come up when you try all the

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: Alpha - next week if possible tarball creation is already fixed, monolithic builds checked, short work with trunk didn't revealed any drastic problems and currently i monitor two ugly bugs: - crashes in #6516, there are already some hinst from Peter in trac - Richard fixed

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at all). I think this is a pretty nasty bug. Jürgen

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: other bug you would like to see killed? The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at all). I think this is a pretty nasty bug. ok pavel

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > >>For the packagers we need some summary what are the recommended > >>dependencies. Haven't been closely following this stuff - could somebody > >>write some summary of all those spellcheck (a/i/hun/spell) and thesaurus > >>deps into RELEASE-NOTES? Juergen, Abdel? >

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > Jürgen has much better writing skills than me :-P > > Very transparent trial. But I'll do it. Done. Please check if everything is correct. Jürgen

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Abdelrazak Younes wrote: >> Is there some cost to leaving the old code in until e.g. #6516 is fixed? >> > > No, we can leave it if this is a blocker of course. actually it would fine if you could look before alpha on this particular one. pavel

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: * Advanced Search - as far as I can see all wanted features finished, Tommaso? at least the simple usage scenarios are ok . . . I expect lot of bug reports here though, we need to wait on users testing. . . . though, I expect bugs to come up when you try all the

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: > Alpha - next week if possible tarball creation is already fixed, monolithic builds checked, short work with trunk didn't revealed any drastic problems and currently i monitor two ugly bugs: - crashes in #6516, there are already some hinst from Peter in trac - Richard fixed

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: > other bug you would like to see killed? The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at all). I think this is a pretty nasty bug. Jürgen

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > other bug you would like to see killed? > > The error dialog is currently completely broken (it doesn't show at all). I > think this is a pretty nasty bug. ok pavel

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Bo Peng wrote: Other entries? The Export as ZIP feature. I'll try to come up with a prototype asap. Vincent Is this the final consensus of the embedding/zip/folder/whatever feature of lyx? there was no discussion about this proposal and as i understood its not embedding feature, but

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW v.f.vanraveste...@tudelft.nl wrote: Did we leave the instability period that was expected due to: - threaded export, IMHO we should #define EXPORT_in_THREAD 0 I have done this in keytest since otherwise keytest would do almost

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

John McCabe-Dansted schreef: On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW v.f.vanraveste...@tudelft.nl wrote: Did we leave the instability period that was expected due to: - threaded export, IMHO we should #define EXPORT_in_THREAD 0 No, we should have this. I

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

John McCabe-Dansted wrote: IMHO we should #define EXPORT_in_THREAD 0 no we should collect as many bugs as possible for new features. #6427. On my machine each threaded export has a roughly 50% chance of crashing LyX. We don't need users tell us that EXPORT_in_THREAD is broken. We already

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote: John McCabe-Dansted wrote: IMHO we should  #define EXPORT_in_THREAD 0 no we should collect as many bugs as possible for new features. But we need some exciting new feature to announce with the second Alpha! :P #6427. On my

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

John McCabe-Dansted wrote: #6427. On my machine each threaded export has a roughly 50% chance of crashing LyX. We don't need users tell us that EXPORT_in_THREAD is broken. We already know it is. Actually, I think I am hitting #6516 more often than #6427. i see. the master child layout

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: stage. The current version can be always reached at http://wiki.lyx.org/Devel/LyX20Road and I fill it once this thread is finished. did this now. still waiting on replies from the French wing Abdel and JMarc. one more idea - if you feel some particular bug should be fixed

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 06/03/2010 18:45, Pavel Sanda wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: stage. The current version can be always reached at http://wiki.lyx.org/Devel/LyX20Road and I fill it once this thread is finished. did this now. still waiting on replies from the French wing Abdel and JMarc. Not sure

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 06/03/2010 14:43, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: John McCabe-Dansted schreef: On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW v.f.vanraveste...@tudelft.nl wrote: Did we leave the instability period that was expected due to: - threaded export, IMHO we should #define

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote: John McCabe-Dansted wrote: It seems that a dialog box allowing the user to choose what to do on a case by case basis would be nicer than the LyX window  disappearing without any warning. Is there a disadvantage? over

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Abdelrazak Younes you...@lyx.org wrote: On 06/03/2010 14:43, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: John McCabe-Dansted schreef: On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW v.f.vanraveste...@tudelft.nl wrote: Did we leave the instability period that

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

John McCabe-Dansted wrote: the dialog which would make me interested is the one which produce backtrace after each crash, so user can put it in our bugzilla. but thats not easy to do i guess. Maybe something like the following? char buffer[512]; sprintf(buffer, (echo set

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 06/03/2010 20:32, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Abdelrazak Younesyou...@lyx.org wrote: On 06/03/2010 14:43, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: John McCabe-Dansted schreef: On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Bo Peng wrote: > >>Other entries? > > > > The "Export as ZIP" feature. I'll try to come up with a prototype asap. > > > > Vincent > > Is this the final consensus of the embedding/zip/folder/whatever > feature of lyx? there was no discussion about this proposal and as i understood its not

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: > Did we leave the instability period that was expected due to: > - threaded export, IMHO we should #define EXPORT_in_THREAD 0 I have done this in keytest since otherwise keytest would do almost

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

John McCabe-Dansted schreef: On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: Did we leave the instability period that was expected due to: - threaded export, IMHO we should #define EXPORT_in_THREAD 0 No, we should have this. I

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > IMHO we should > #define EXPORT_in_THREAD 0 no we should collect as many bugs as possible for new features. > #6427. On my machine each threaded export has a roughly 50% chance of > crashing LyX. We don't need users tell us that EXPORT_in_THREAD is > broken. We

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > John McCabe-Dansted wrote: >> IMHO we should >>  #define EXPORT_in_THREAD 0 > > no we should collect as many bugs as possible for new features. But we need some exciting new feature to announce with the second Alpha! :P >>

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > >> #6427. On my machine each threaded export has a roughly 50% chance of > >> crashing LyX. We don't need users tell us that EXPORT_in_THREAD is > >> broken. We already know it is. > > Actually, I think I am hitting #6516 more often than #6427. i see. the master

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

Pavel Sanda wrote: > stage. The current version can be always reached at > http://wiki.lyx.org/Devel/LyX20Road > and I fill it once this thread is finished. did this now. still waiting on replies from the French wing Abdel and JMarc. one more idea - if you feel some particular bug should be

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 06/03/2010 18:45, Pavel Sanda wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: stage. The current version can be always reached at http://wiki.lyx.org/Devel/LyX20Road and I fill it once this thread is finished. did this now. still waiting on replies from the French wing Abdel and JMarc. Not sure

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 06/03/2010 14:43, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: John McCabe-Dansted schreef: On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: Did we leave the instability period that was expected due to: - threaded export, IMHO we should #define

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > John McCabe-Dansted wrote: >> It seems that a dialog box allowing the user to choose what to do on a >> case by case basis would be nicer than the LyX window  disappearing >> without any warning. Is there a disadvantage? > >

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > On 06/03/2010 14:43, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: >> >> John McCabe-Dansted schreef: >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW >>> wrote: Did we leave

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > > the dialog which would make me interested is the one which produce > > backtrace after each crash, so user can put it in our bugzilla. > > but thats not easy to do i guess. > > Maybe something like the following? > char buffer[512]; > sprintf(buffer,

Re: LyX 2.0 release plan

On 06/03/2010 20:32, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 06/03/2010 14:43, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: John McCabe-Dansted schreef: On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW

  1   2   >