Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 07:15:15PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: > Am 2. April 2016 18:48:12 MESZ, schrieb Scott Kostyshak : > >On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 11:11:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: > >> > >> I've found a solution for the strange crashes, strfwd.h must always > >included

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Am 2. April 2016 18:48:12 MESZ, schrieb Scott Kostyshak : >On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 11:11:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> >> I've found a solution for the strange crashes, strfwd.h must always >included first, if not the compiler makes assumption which are wrong. >> Now

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 11:11:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: > > I've found a solution for the strange crashes, strfwd.h must always included > first, if not the compiler makes assumption which are wrong. > Now config.h for msvc2015 includes strfwd.h, not very nice but it solves the > issue.

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Am 27.03.2016 um 21:38 schrieb Uwe Stöhr: Am 20.03.2016 um 21:48 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: Peter stated [1] that the patch is not necessary for compilation with MSVC 2010. But it doesn't harm then, see my today's post in the plans thread. It seems the majority opinion is to release rc1

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Am Freitag, 1. April 2016 um 19:18:11, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 04:00:20PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > Georg Baum wrote: > > > Where can I get a > > > current list of the email addresses of the translators? > > > > Headers of .po files usually

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > Headers of .po files usually contains the last translator, > > This is what Kornel's script takes care of automatically. I just send bunch of direct emails for the translators. Lets see. P

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 04:00:20PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Georg Baum wrote: > > Where can I get a > > current list of the email addresses of the translators? > > Headers of .po files usually contains the last translator, This is what Kornel's script takes care of automatically. Scott >

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Georg Baum wrote: > Where can I get a > current list of the email addresses of the translators? Headers of .po files usually contains the last translator, git log should help in case the mail is missing. I would CC lyx doc list as well. Pavel

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > Do you think Monday (April 4) is enough time? That would give the > weekend, at least. OK, I'll try that. >> Where can I get a >> current list of the email addresses of the translators? > > Others have taken care of contacting the translators, so I'm not sure > what

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > I get your point. Anyway I still think there would be value in compiling > LyX on windows with several Qt and compilers. The fact that we do that > in Linux has been very useful IMO. Definitely. I always try to compile my stuff with as many compilers/platforms as

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Le 29/03/2016 22:47, Georg Baum a écrit : This is your choice anyway. But then you'll have to cope with the windows specific bugs that we may have, with fewer hints about what goes wrong. IMHO this is not the choice of Uwe alone. The windows installer is provided under the name of the LyX

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 09:59:17AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:45:33AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > >> Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > >> It is highest time to call for reviews. The last call is here: > >>

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 27/03/2016 21:38, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : >> As I just wrote in the other thread I prefer Qt 5.6. >> I can nevertheless release RC1 with Qt5.5.1/MSVC2010 and also a Qt 5.6 >> version. However, for the final release I won't maintain/offer support >> for a Qt 5.5.1

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Le 27/03/2016 21:38, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : As I just wrote in the other thread I prefer Qt 5.6. I can nevertheless release RC1 with Qt5.5.1/MSVC2010 and also a Qt 5.6 version. However, for the final release I won't maintain/offer support for a Qt 5.5.1 build. Due to lack of time I will have to

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:45:33AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: >> Pavel Sanda wrote: > >> It is highest time to call for reviews. The last call is here: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-docs@lists.lyx.org/msg07949.html >> >> Scott, I can do that if you like. > > Yes,

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 09:38:34PM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 20.03.2016 um 21:48 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > >Peter stated [1] that the patch is not necessary for compilation with > >MSVC 2010. > > But it doesn't harm then, see my today's post in the plans thread. > > >It seems the majority

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Am 20.03.2016 um 21:48 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: Peter stated [1] that the patch is not necessary for compilation with MSVC 2010. But it doesn't harm then, see my today's post in the plans thread. It seems the majority opinion is to release rc1 (and final 2.2.0) with Qt 5.5.1 compiled with

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:45:33AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > I keep track of missing things in layouttranslations.review. > > In last releases when strings were frozen, I wrote to all translators to > > check few additional items. > > > > I missed the freeze-string

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Pavel Sanda wrote: > I keep track of missing things in layouttranslations.review. > In last releases when strings were frozen, I wrote to all translators to > check few additional items. > > I missed the freeze-string message on the dev list to react appropriately > at the time; I still planned

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

José Matos wrote: > For python 3 the strings are now unicode strings and so all works: > > $ ipython3 --no-banner > > In [1]: type( "123%s" % "") > Out[1]: str > > In [2]: type( "123%s" % u"") > Out[2]: str > > So a safe bet would be to prefix all the strings with an u, overkill sure > but it

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 9:36:45 PM WET Georg Baum wrote: > You are right. I did only test the patch manually with some of the > conversions, and they did work. Now I did test it more systematically in > the build system, and it turned out that in some cases the u prefix is > needed, but not

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Georg Baum wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > - What am I missing? > > While testing the changed lyx_pot.py file I did also update > lib/layouttranslations. The result is attached. Either I missed it, or there > was no call for confirmation of changed layout translations. If there was no >

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > - What am I missing? While testing the changed lyx_pot.py file I did also update lib/layouttranslations. The result is attached. Either I missed it, or there was no call for confirmation of changed layout translations. If there was no call, then we definitely need it

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

José Matos wrote: > So Georg if you got the code to work with python2 in you have my +1. :-) Thanks for looking at this. > There are two possible source of problems: > 1) input files should be utf-8. Since I think that is the case the patch > is safe. Yes, all input files are encoded in utf8,

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:45:12 PM WET Georg Baum wrote: > It would be great if somebody with good python kowledge can confirm that > the patch does not break anything with python2. If there is nobody who can > easily confirm this then I propose to apply it after 2.2.0 is out, since it > is

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > - I do not understand if we need to do something for #9979? IMHO only if there is some volunteer who has a fix ready in time. The conditions for this bug are so special that it also can wait a little bit longer. > - Georg has provided a patch to improve building with

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Le 21/03/2016 13:09, Joel Kulesza a écrit : Indeed, I can spend some time and would be happy to have the community's help to be able to build using the latest-and-greatest features. Later today I'll collect my thoughts and enumerate my (failed) approaches in a separate email to the lyx-devel

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Stephan Witt wrote: > > In case you’re able to spend some time I think we should find a way to put > you on the track to build LyX yourself. > It is an important thing to come to a "fail safe“ and redundant > environment. Indeed, I can spend

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Am 21.03.2016 um 01:10 schrieb Joel Kulesza : > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > #9992 > It is a crash because of a screen management tool. Because it is due to > external software, I don't think we should consider this a rc1

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > #9992 > It is a crash because of a screen management tool. Because it is due to > external software, I don't think we should consider this a rc1 blocker. > There is a regression from the user perspective, and it would

Re: Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Le 20/03/2016 20:48, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : #9963 Although this is a regression, we cannot reproduce and I don't think it is a blocker so unless someone has an idea I think we must postpone. I agree. Also my patch worked around the most annoying part of the bug already.

Issues to discuss for 2.2.0rc1

Dear all, We are closer to 2.2.0rc1. The following are the issues that I think we should address before 2.2.0rc1 (and 2.2.0 final). Regarding the tickets that we have with a 2.2.0 milestone: #9892 Peter stated [1] that the patch is not necessary for compilation with MSVC 2010. It seems the