John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
John If LyX locked files which were open in a still running LyX
John process, that would have saved me some confusion.
Yes, but I am sure this can cause a lot of confusion too...
I am not sure why this would cause confusion. You could have a dialog
box warning
Jean-Marc == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jean-Marc Anyway, I have an additional patch for this bug. Anyone
Jean-Marc disagrees?
Applied.
JMarc
Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
|
| John If LyX locked files which were open in a still running LyX
| John process, that would have saved me some confusion.
|
| Yes, but I am sure this can cause a lot of confusion too...
|
|
| I am not sure why this would
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Please have a look at how emacs does this. (I am in favor of the
Lars 'when in doubt do as emacs' camp.)
It uses a ~/.emacs-places file which contains a list of files and
offsets.
JMarc
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
John> If LyX locked files which were open in a still running LyX
John> process, that would have saved me some confusion.
Yes, but I am sure this can cause a lot of confusion too...
I am not sure why this would cause confusion. You could have a dialog
box
> "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jean-Marc> Anyway, I have an additional patch for this bug. Anyone
Jean-Marc> disagrees?
Applied.
JMarc
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
|
| >>John> If LyX locked files which were open in a still running LyX
| >>John> process, that would have saved me some confusion.
| >>
| >>Yes, but I am sure this can cause a lot of confusion too...
| >>
| >
| >I am not sure
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Please have a look at how emacs does this. (I am in favor of the
Lars> 'when in doubt do as emacs' camp.)
It uses a ~/.emacs-places file which contains a list of files and
offsets.
JMarc
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:27 +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Martin Vermeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you should not be able to accidentally change that file's
date stamp (yes, that's the most hateful thing about re-saving
unchanged documents -- and no way within the known
John If LyX locked files which were open in a still running LyX
John process, that would have saved me some confusion.
Yes, but I am sure this can cause a lot of confusion too...
I am not sure why this would cause confusion. You could have a dialog
box warning that Another LyX window has this
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:55:15AM +0100, Stephan Witt wrote:
Better solution would be to have your LyX docs in a version control
system. I wonder how many people have.
We have it on our site. We are using networking CVS and readonly checkouts.
I have distributed locally a patched LyX with
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:27 +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
you should not be able to accidentally change that file's
date stamp (yes, that's the most hateful thing about re-saving
"unchanged" documents -- and no way within the
> John> If LyX locked files which were open in a still running LyX
> John> process, that would have saved me some confusion.
>
> Yes, but I am sure this can cause a lot of confusion too...
I am not sure why this would cause confusion. You could have a dialog
box warning that "Another LyX window
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:55:15AM +0100, Stephan Witt wrote:
> >Better solution would be to have your LyX docs in a version control
> >system. I wonder how many people have.
>
> We have it on our site. We are using networking CVS and readonly checkouts.
> I have distributed locally a patched LyX
John == John McCabe-Dansted [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, the extra trouble only ever occur for power users.
John Perhaps we could have a new minibuffer command save-unchanged
John which would save the document even if it is unchanged. Such
John power users could replace save with
> "John" == John McCabe-Dansted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sure, the "extra trouble" only ever occur for power users.
John> Perhaps we could have a new minibuffer command save-unchanged
John> which would save the document even if it is unchanged. Such
John> power users could replace
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:59:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Jean-Marc == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: |
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:29 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
...
This patch makes
every save intentional, which is a Good Thing.
Lyx already indicates if the document is changed or not.
I may still need to _save_ an unchanged document, because
I know I modified the
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 11:51 +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:29 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
...
This patch makes
every save intentional, which is a Good Thing.
Lyx already indicates if the document is changed or not.
I may still
Martin Vermeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you should not be able to accidentally change that file's
date stamp (yes, that's the most hateful thing about re-saving
unchanged documents -- and no way within the known laws of physics to
revert it!)
touch -t 200602291200 myfile.lyx
? Or is
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:27 +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Martin Vermeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you should not be able to accidentally change that file's
date stamp (yes, that's the most hateful thing about re-saving
unchanged documents -- and no way within the known laws of physics to
Martin Vermeer wrote:
Better solution would be to have your LyX docs in a version control
system. I wonder how many people have.
Me. And it really helps.
Georg
Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
Better solution would be to have your LyX docs in a version control
system. I wonder how many people have.
Me. And it really helps.
Me too. And I agree :)
A.
Helge == Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Helge Lyx already indicates if the document is changed or not. I may
Helge still need to _save_ an unchanged document, because I know I
Helge modified the .lyx file through other means: * I copied another
Helge file over it (most common) * I
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 11:51 +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:29 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
...
This patch makes
every save intentional, which is a Good Thing.
Lyx already indicates if the
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Helge == Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Helge Lyx already indicates if the document is changed or not. I may
Helge still need to _save_ an unchanged document, because I know I
Helge modified the .lyx file through other means: * I copied
Sure, the extra trouble only ever occur for power users.
Perhaps we could have a new minibuffer command save-unchanged which
would save the document even if it is unchanged. Such power users
could replace save with save-unchanged in their .bind files etc.
If you _know_ it, it is OK to have to
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:59:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
"Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:29 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
...
> > This patch makes
> >every save intentional, which is a Good Thing.
> >
> >
> Lyx already indicates if the document is changed or not.
> I may still need to _save_ an unchanged document, because
> I know I
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 11:51 +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:29 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > This patch makes
> > >every save intentional, which is a Good Thing.
> > >
> > >
> > Lyx already indicates if the document is changed or
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> you should not be able to accidentally change that file's
> date stamp (yes, that's the most hateful thing about re-saving
> "unchanged" documents -- and no way within the known laws of physics to
> revert it!)
touch -t 200602291200 myfile.lyx
?
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:27 +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > you should not be able to accidentally change that file's
> > date stamp (yes, that's the most hateful thing about re-saving
> > "unchanged" documents -- and no way within the known laws of
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Better solution would be to have your LyX docs in a version control
> system. I wonder how many people have.
Me. And it really helps.
Georg
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> > Better solution would be to have your LyX docs in a version control
> > system. I wonder how many people have.
>
> Me. And it really helps.
Me too. And I agree :)
A.
> "Helge" == Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Helge> Lyx already indicates if the document is changed or not. I may
Helge> still need to _save_ an unchanged document, because I know I
Helge> modified the .lyx file through other means: * I copied another
Helge> file over it (most
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 11:51 +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:29 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
...
This patch makes
every save intentional, which is a Good Thing.
Lyx already indicates if the
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Helge" == Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Helge> Lyx already indicates if the document is changed or not. I may
Helge> still need to _save_ an unchanged document, because I know I
Helge> modified the .lyx file through other means: * I copied
> Sure, the "extra trouble" only ever occur for power users.
Perhaps we could have a new minibuffer command save-unchanged which
would save the document even if it is unchanged. Such power users
could replace "save" with "save-unchanged" in their .bind files etc.
> >If you _know_ it, it is OK to
This patch disables Save when document is not changed. This is going
in trunk and branch this afternoon if nobody complains.
JMarc
Index: src/ChangeLog
===
--- src/ChangeLog (revision 13376)
+++ src/ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| This patch disables Save when document is not changed. This is going
| in trunk and branch this afternoon if nobody complains.
Why do we need to avoid a save when the document is not changed? Why
is it wrong to just overwrite the existing one?
--
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: |
Lars This patch disables Save when document is not changed. This is
Lars going | in trunk and branch this afternoon if nobody complains.
Lars Why do we need to avoid a save when the
Jean-Marc == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: |
Lars This patch disables Save when document is not changed. This is
Lars going | in trunk and branch this afternoon if nobody
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:59:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Jean-Marc == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: |
Lars This patch disables Save when document is not
Martin == Martin Vermeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin No, I think it is nice. Many word processors even claim that
Martin the doc has changed when you didn't do anything... I hate
Martin that. This patch makes every save intentional, which is a Good
Martin Thing.
Something I want to do (not
Martin Vermeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| There is the easiest of workarounds: do a small edit.
| spacebackspace comes to mind.
And super annoying...
(but I guess we are used to it...)
--
Lgb
This patch disables Save when document is not changed. This is going
in trunk and branch this afternoon if nobody complains.
JMarc
Index: src/ChangeLog
===
--- src/ChangeLog (revision 13376)
+++ src/ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| This patch disables Save when document is not changed. This is going
| in trunk and branch this afternoon if nobody complains.
Why do we need to avoid a save when the document is not changed? Why
is it wrong to just overwrite the existing one?
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
Lars> This patch disables Save when document is not changed. This is
Lars> going | in trunk and branch this afternoon if nobody complains.
Lars> Why do we need to avoid a save
> "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
Lars> This patch disables Save when document is not changed. This is
Lars> going | in trunk and branch
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:59:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
> Lars> This patch disables
> "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> No, I think it is nice. Many word processors even claim that
Martin> the doc has changed when you didn't do anything... I hate
Martin> that. This patch makes every save intentional, which is a Good
Martin> Thing.
Something I
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| There is the easiest of workarounds: do a small edit.
| comes to mind.
And super annoying...
(but I guess we are used to it...)
--
Lgb
52 matches
Mail list logo
