Michael Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars wrote:
|
| | I also would like to have a new release without NEW_INSETS so that we
| | have a version as least as stable as 1.1.5fix2. Then we will be able
| | to jump to the next step. The risk if we don't do that is that people
| | just
Michael Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars wrote:
|
| > | I also would like to have a new release without NEW_INSETS so that we
| > | have a version as least as stable as 1.1.5fix2. Then we will be able
| > | to jump to the next step. The risk if we don't do that is that people
| > |
"Mike" == [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Only a little heretical :-) I wanted to show a little annoyance
Mike without being completely rude about it. I know you want a lot of
Mike people to test such things; I just wish another pre or two had
Mike been released first (but then that would have
On 21-Feb-2001 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
What happened also is that the little Kai arrived in december, so that
#:O)
Juergen had other things in mind than fixing the tabular. This means
we knew the situation was not going to improve very soon.
Sure and he still holds my breath! But now
"Juergen" == Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Juergen P.S.: But I'm quite sure this cannot be backported to 1.1.6
Juergen (at least not by me), as this would mean to redo the whole
Juergen stuff as I don't know how to sort out the changes I made with
Juergen the ones other made, and I
> "Mike" == <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> Only a little heretical :-) I wanted to show a little annoyance
Mike> without being completely rude about it. I know you want a lot of
Mike> people to test such things; I just wish another pre or two had
Mike> been released first (but then that
On 21-Feb-2001 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> What happened also is that the little Kai arrived in december, so that
#:O)
> Juergen had other things in mind than fixing the tabular. This means
> we knew the situation was not going to improve very soon.
Sure and he still holds my breath! But
> "Juergen" == Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> P.S.: But I'm quite sure this cannot be backported to 1.1.6
Juergen> (at least not by me), as this would mean to redo the whole
Juergen> stuff as I don't know how to sort out the changes I made with
Juergen> the ones other
"Juergen" == Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Juergen No they are not backported yet, also because there is a lot
Juergen to backport and probaly I would have to rewrite it for 1.1.6.
Juergen I'm still of the opinion that we should release a 1.1.7
Juergen without the new-insets (as soon
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| "Juergen" == Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| Juergen No they are not backported yet, also because there is a lot
| Juergen to backport and probaly I would have to rewrite it for 1.1.6.
| Juergen I'm still of the opinion that we
Lars wrote:
| I also would like to have a new release without NEW_INSETS so that we
| have a version as least as stable as 1.1.5fix2. Then we will be able
| to jump to the next step. The risk if we don't do that is that people
| just won't test new versions and wait until things seems
"Jules" == Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jules Which is exactly what I'm doing, despotically, on behalf of
Jules debian... which does reduce how many testers you have...
I understand that you do that. I would not like to use a distribution
with unstable software in it :(
Jules I think
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:41:57PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Jules" == Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jules Which is exactly what I'm doing, despotically, on behalf of
Jules debian... which does reduce how many testers you have...
I understand that you do that. I would
Moin Jules,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:56:21PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
And what about packaging both 1.1.5fix2 and 1.1.6fix2?
I could do that, in a sense. It is not normally done to release a
distribution of debian with two versions of a package in (although it
is, for example, for
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:48:27PM +0100, Bernd Harmsen wrote:
Moin Jules,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:56:21PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
And what about packaging both 1.1.5fix2 and 1.1.6fix2?
I could do that, in a sense. It is not normally done to release a
distribution of debian
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 16-Feb-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been trying to figure out a polite way to say this for some time.
Juergen just pushed me over the edge :-)
Well you shouldn't have put that smily there on a friday, you're a heretic! ;)
> "Juergen" == Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> No they are not backported yet, also because there is a lot
Juergen> to backport and probaly I would have to rewrite it for 1.1.6.
Juergen> I'm still of the opinion that we should release a 1.1.7
Juergen> without the
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Juergen" == Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Juergen> No they are not backported yet, also because there is a lot
| Juergen> to backport and probaly I would have to rewrite it for 1.1.6.
| Juergen> I'm still of the opinion
Lars wrote:
> | I also would like to have a new release without NEW_INSETS so that we
> | have a version as least as stable as 1.1.5fix2. Then we will be able
> | to jump to the next step. The risk if we don't do that is that people
> | just won't test new versions and wait until things seems
> "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> Which is exactly what I'm doing, despotically, on behalf of
Jules> debian... which does reduce how many testers you have...
I understand that you do that. I would not like to use a distribution
with unstable software in it :(
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:41:57PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jules> Which is exactly what I'm doing, despotically, on behalf of
> Jules> debian... which does reduce how many testers you have...
>
> I understand that you do
Moin Jules,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:56:21PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> > And what about packaging both 1.1.5fix2 and 1.1.6fix2?
> I could do that, in a sense. It is not normally done to release a
> distribution of debian with two versions of a package in (although it
> is, for example, for
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:48:27PM +0100, Bernd Harmsen wrote:
>
> Moin Jules,
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:56:21PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > And what about packaging both 1.1.5fix2 and 1.1.6fix2?
>
> > I could do that, in a sense. It is not normally done to release a
> > distribution
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> On 16-Feb-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I've been trying to figure out a polite way to say this for some time.
> > Juergen just pushed me over the edge :-)
>
> Well you shouldn't have put that smily there on a friday, you're a heretic! ;)
>
>
On 16-Feb-2001 Amir Karger wrote:
you have to be careful about releasing. I mean, especially because there was
actually reduced functionality in the new tables!
Well IMO they don't have reduced functionallity, actually IMVO that they
have enhanced functionallity! We would have to put them in
Hello,
No they are not backported yet, also because there is a lot to backport and
probaly I would have to rewrite it for 1.1.6. I'm still of the opinion that
we should release a 1.1.7 without the new-insets (as soon as I commit my
tabular-scroll fix).
Could this be a compromise?
1.
On 19-Feb-2001 Michael Schmitt wrote:
Could this be a compromise?
1. Juergen fixes all/most outstanding bugs
2. Lars integrates the new-insets code
3. Allan and Karl fix libsigc++ for Sun CC
4. A pre-release of LyX 1.1.7 is produced ASAP
5. I will run Purify on my machine
Juergen Vigna wrote:
Could this be a compromise?
1. Juergen fixes all/most outstanding bugs
2. Lars integrates the new-insets code
3. Allan and Karl fix libsigc++ for Sun CC
4. A pre-release of LyX 1.1.7 is produced ASAP
5. I will run Purify on my machine (day and night
Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 19-Feb-2001 Michael Schmitt wrote:
|
| Could this be a compromise?
|
|1. Juergen fixes all/most outstanding bugs
|2. Lars integrates the new-insets code
|3. Allan and Karl fix libsigc++ for Sun CC
|4. A pre-release of LyX 1.1.7 is
Michael Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Could you then test if most of the stuff you reporded is fixed now (for
| tabular only)?
|
| Yes, I can compile the cvs-version but only with g++, not with Sun CC (and
| Purify).
|
| I am definitely willing to make thourough testings but only if
On 19-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjnnes wrote:
|
| IMO there's a lot more to do on the textinset's when we use it in various
| different insets.
Specifics?
The problem with textinsets now is when having a textinset in a
textinset and you can have that problem in a tabular as well...
No this
Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 19-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjnnes wrote:
|
| |
| | IMO there's a lot more to do on the textinset's when we use it in various
| | different insets.
|
| Specifics?
| The problem with textinsets now is when having a textinset in a
| textinset and you
On 19-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjnnes wrote:
How is this really different from the with of a tabular cell?
(there is something that I don't get...)
The difference is a static length or a length given by it's owner, which
can change (dynamic lenght). With this we have update problems!
And to
Juergen Vigna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 19-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjnnes wrote:
|
| How is this really different from the with of a tabular cell?
| (there is something that I don't get...)
|
|
| The difference is a static length or a length given by it's owner, which
| can change
On 19-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjnnes wrote:
Can this be fixed by assuming a dynamic length always? f.ex. by
removing InsetText::insetWidth and always call InsetText::width
instead?
And then we forbid inset in inset, isn't it?
Why is the caching of these values (ascent,descent,with) really
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 16-Feb-2001 Amir Karger wrote:
you have to be careful about releasing. I mean, especially because there was
actually reduced functionality in the new tables!
Well IMO they don't have reduced functionallity, actually IMVO that they
have
FWIW, I'm inclined to release 1.2.0 _now_, as in today, with the contents
of current CVS if for no other reason than give people a working table
implementation and stop all the "tables are %$@ed in LyX-1.1.6" emails.
Just out of curiosity: Why is "mathed is %$@ed up in 1.2.0" preferable
to
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Andre Poenitz wrote:
This should be safe enough despite all the mathed and frontends changes.
Well, we certainly try not to break things but the changes have not been
tested at all...
Until yesterdays changes mathed seemed okay. I haven't tested yesterdays
but changes
On 16-Feb-2001 Amir Karger wrote:
> you have to be careful about releasing. I mean, especially because there was
> actually reduced functionality in the new tables!
Well IMO they don't have reduced functionallity, actually IMVO that they
have enhanced functionallity! We would have to put them
Hello,
> No they are not backported yet, also because there is a lot to backport and
> probaly I would have to rewrite it for 1.1.6. I'm still of the opinion that
> we should release a 1.1.7 without the new-insets (as soon as I commit my
> tabular-scroll fix).
Could this be a compromise?
1.
On 19-Feb-2001 Michael Schmitt wrote:
>
> Could this be a compromise?
>
> 1. Juergen fixes all/most outstanding bugs
> 2. Lars integrates the new-insets code
> 3. Allan and Karl fix libsigc++ for Sun CC
> 4. A pre-release of LyX 1.1.7 is produced ASAP
> 5. I will run Purify on my
Juergen Vigna wrote:
> > Could this be a compromise?
> >
> > 1. Juergen fixes all/most outstanding bugs
> > 2. Lars integrates the new-insets code
> > 3. Allan and Karl fix libsigc++ for Sun CC
> > 4. A pre-release of LyX 1.1.7 is produced ASAP
> > 5. I will run Purify on my machine
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 19-Feb-2001 Michael Schmitt wrote:
| >
| > Could this be a compromise?
| >
| > 1. Juergen fixes all/most outstanding bugs
| > 2. Lars integrates the new-insets code
| > 3. Allan and Karl fix libsigc++ for Sun CC
| > 4. A pre-release of LyX
Michael Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Could you then test if most of the stuff you reporded is fixed now (for
| > tabular only)?
|
| Yes, I can compile the cvs-version but only with g++, not with Sun CC (and
| Purify).
|
| I am definitely willing to make thourough testings but only
On 19-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>|
>| IMO there's a lot more to do on the textinset's when we use it in various
>| different insets.
>
> Specifics?
> The problem with textinsets now is when having a textinset in a
> textinset and you can have that problem in a tabular as well...
No
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 19-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| >|
| >| IMO there's a lot more to do on the textinset's when we use it in various
| >| different insets.
| >
| > Specifics?
| > The problem with textinsets now is when having a textinset in a
| >
On 19-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> How is this really different from the with of a tabular cell?
> (there is something that I don't get...)
>
The difference is a static length or a length given by it's owner, which
can change (dynamic lenght). With this we have update problems!
>
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 19-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| >
| > How is this really different from the with of a tabular cell?
| > (there is something that I don't get...)
| >
|
| The difference is a static length or a length given by it's owner, which
| can
On 19-Feb-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> Can this be fixed by assuming a dynamic length always? f.ex. by
> removing InsetText::insetWidth and always call InsetText::width
> instead?
And then we forbid inset in inset, isn't it?
> Why is the caching of these values (ascent,descent,with)
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 16-Feb-2001 Amir Karger wrote:
> > you have to be careful about releasing. I mean, especially because there was
> > actually reduced functionality in the new tables!
>
> Well IMO they don't have reduced functionallity, actually IMVO that they
>
> FWIW, I'm inclined to release 1.2.0 _now_, as in today, with the contents
> of current CVS if for no other reason than give people a working table
> implementation and stop all the "tables are %&$@ed in LyX-1.1.6" emails.
Just out of curiosity: Why is "mathed is %&$@ed up in 1.2.0" preferable
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > This should be safe enough despite all the mathed and frontends changes.
>
> Well, we certainly try not to break things but the changes have not been
> tested at all...
Until yesterdays changes mathed seemed okay. I haven't tested yesterdays
but
On 16-Feb-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been trying to figure out a polite way to say this for some time.
Juergen just pushed me over the edge :-)
Well you shouldn't have put that smily there on a friday, you're a heretic! ;)
Jrgen (who still thinks we did the right choice)
--
On 16-Feb-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I've been trying to figure out a polite way to say this for some time.
> Juergen just pushed me over the edge :-)
Well you shouldn't have put that smily there on a friday, you're a heretic! ;)
Jürgen (who still thinks we did the right choice)
On 15-Feb-2001 Michael Schmitt wrote:
However, it is my impression that 1.1.6 has been released a bit too early
because,
e.g., the table handling is incomplete and causes a lot of pain in practice.
From a user's point I recommend to continue to work with 1.1.5fix2 (which is
_very_ stable)
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 15-Feb-2001 Michael Schmitt wrote:
However, it is my impression that 1.1.6 has been released a bit too early
Well the problem is that we wouldn't have found all the problems with
the tabulars so fast if we wouldn't have released it to public,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:54:45AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
On 15-Feb-2001 Michael Schmitt wrote:
However, it is my impression that 1.1.6 has been released a bit too early
Well the problem is that we wouldn't have found all the problems
On 15-Feb-2001 Michael Schmitt wrote:
> However, it is my impression that 1.1.6 has been released a bit too early
> because,
> e.g., the table handling is incomplete and causes a lot of pain in practice.
>>From a user's point I recommend to continue to work with 1.1.5fix2 (which is
> _very_
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> On 15-Feb-2001 Michael Schmitt wrote:
> > However, it is my impression that 1.1.6 has been released a bit too early
>
> Well the problem is that we wouldn't have found all the problems with
> the tabulars so fast if we wouldn't have released it to
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:54:45AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> > On 15-Feb-2001 Michael Schmitt wrote:
> > > However, it is my impression that 1.1.6 has been released a bit too early
> >
> > Well the problem is that we wouldn't have found all the
Hi all,
I'm thinking of packaging a new version of lyx for debian, since I
have shamefully not updated it since the deadkeys bugged one. However,
i've been a little alarmed by all the crash reportss I've seen for
1.1.6fix1. Is my impression right that it's less stable than 1.1.5?
Should I wait
Dear Jules,
I wouldn't say that 1.1.6fix1 is unstable in the sense that it crashes
regularly. In fact, it hasn't crashed a single time even though I use it
aggressively. And, of course, there are many new improvements, e.g., a totally
revised menu structure, that show how hard the LyX developers
Hi all,
I'm thinking of packaging a new version of lyx for debian, since I
have shamefully not updated it since the deadkeys bugged one. However,
i've been a little alarmed by all the crash reportss I've seen for
1.1.6fix1. Is my impression right that it's less stable than 1.1.5?
Should I wait
Dear Jules,
I wouldn't say that 1.1.6fix1 is unstable in the sense that it crashes
regularly. In fact, it hasn't crashed a single time even though I use it
aggressively. And, of course, there are many new improvements, e.g., a totally
revised menu structure, that show how hard the LyX developers
64 matches
Mail list logo
