Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On 2017-07-15, Christian Ridderström wrote: > On 7 July 2017 at 04:37, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> > What do others think? >> ^ If you get support from other LyX devs, and you are willing to take >> care of everything, then I'm fine with it. My only other criterion is >> that I

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:10:31AM +0200, Christian Ridderström wrote: > I just went through a large chunk of the minted postings and I still don't > have a clear idea about my preference, and I'm therefore not sure what to > write that'd contribute. > > I'm generally inclined towards security

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:48:34AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > ATM, in no way you can risk > something if you decide to use minted. You would have to know what to > change in the preferences for taking that risk. On the contrary, when > using one of the above mentioned features, the risk is

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Le 15/07/2017 à 19:06, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Le 15/07/2017 à 18:55, Christian Ridderström a écrit : In my opinion, if we don't reach consensus easily on formatting issues, we should at least for now refrain from using a .clang-format. This is probably what is going to take too much

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On 17 July 2017 at 00:48, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > Dear Christian, > > I see that the operated obfuscation of issues is working with you. > Dear Enrico, Don't worry, all is not lost and any operation obfuscation has not yet succeeded in invading Sweden. I still know that I

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:10:31AM +0200, Christian Ridderström wrote: > On 16 July 2017 at 22:45, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > What I mean is that my absolute priority these days is to have 2.3.0 out. > > > Fully understood. > > > > The cleanups I proposed where

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On 16 July 2017 at 22:45, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > What I mean is that my absolute priority these days is to have 2.3.0 out. Fully understood. > The cleanups I proposed where chosen to have a minimal effect on release > date. Anything that requires too much thinking

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Le 16/07/2017 à 22:02, Christian Ridderström a écrit : Indeed, my original message was about doing things that had a moderate price tag attached to them. Imposing a style is IMO too expensive for us at this point. I'm definitely not looking to impose a new style and I'm spending

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On 16 July 2017 at 21:39, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 16/07/2017 à 21:34, Kornel Benko a écrit : > >> If not now, then probably never. There is no optimal start, except >> at start of a project. >> > > Not necessarily. We do not have much spare time to do it right, and

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On 16 July 2017 at 21:15, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 16/07/2017 à 20:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >> "no debate" is good, but we want even more than that. We want a few more >> "yes let's go for it!" before we impose a new style. I think we got >> support from

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Le 16/07/2017 à 21:34, Kornel Benko a écrit : If not now, then probably never. There is no optimal start, except at start of a project. Not necessarily. We do not have much spare time to do it right, and this kind of thing needs to be correct on first run. We can discuss this in the 2.4

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Am Sonntag, 16. Juli 2017 um 21:15:42, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes > Le 16/07/2017 à 20:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > "no debate" is good, but we want even more than that. We want a few more > > "yes let's go for it!" before we impose a new style. I think we got > >

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Le 16/07/2017 à 20:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : "no debate" is good, but we want even more than that. We want a few more "yes let's go for it!" before we impose a new style. I think we got support from Kornel, but we would want more to go forward. There are other costs to changing many lines

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 07:53:29PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 15/07/2017 à 19:28, Christian Ridderström a écrit : > > I hope we can at least see if a debate is necessary, we might get lucky. > > Perhaps the current source code is mainly consistent, in which case we > > could align to

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Le 15/07/2017 à 19:28, Christian Ridderström a écrit : I hope we can at least see if a debate is necessary, we might get lucky. Perhaps the current source code is mainly consistent, in which case we could align to that format. I can at least compile a list of topics. Sure. What I do not want

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On 15 July 2017 at 19:06, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 15/07/2017 à 18:55, Christian Ridderström a écrit : > >> In my opinion, if we don't reach consensus easily on formatting issues, >> we should at least for now refrain from using a .clang-format. >> > > This is

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Le 15/07/2017 à 18:55, Christian Ridderström a écrit : In my opinion, if we don't reach consensus easily on formatting issues, we should at least for now refrain from using a .clang-format. This is probably what is going to take too much time... I am not sure that we should have such a

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On 7 July 2017 at 04:37, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > What do others think? > > ^ If you get support from other LyX devs, and you are willing to take > care of everything, then I'm find with it. My only other criterion is > that I don't want to personally spend any time on this.

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Am Freitag, 7. Juli 2017 um 00:03:50, schrieb Christian Ridderström > > PS. > As I see it, after we're using clang-format, a next step could be to use > 'clang-tidy' to do some static analysis. > clang-format-custom I have version clang-format-3.9. Using this version, there are

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Am Donnerstag, 6. Juli 2017 um 22:37:59, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 12:03:50AM +0200, Christian Ridderström wrote: > > > - We can compare the built executable before and after running clang-format, > > the executables should be identical. > > I don't

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 12:03:50AM +0200, Christian Ridderström wrote: > - We can compare the built executable before and after running clang-format, > the executables should be identical. I don't know why I had never considered that approach before (although it is obvious now), and I like

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Hi Scott, On 6 July 2017 at 22:20, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > - Now (before release) would be a good time to start using clang-format > > Why? One reason is that it might make it easier to backport fixes from > master to 2.3.x. This was my reason, as comparison of code

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:23:24PM +0200, Christian Ridderström wrote: > - Now (before release) would be a good time to start using clang-format Why? One reason is that it might make it easier to backport fixes from master to 2.3.x. A reason against such a change is that the benefit is more

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On 3 July 2017 at 11:26, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Since we are approaching major release, I think it is a good time to do > some mechanical clean-ups. The idea is that it is better to do it now > instead of at the beginning of a cycle in order to ease backporting of >

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Le 03/07/2017 à 11:26, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : * renaming MathMacro (resp. MathMacroTemplate) to InsetMathMacro (resp. InsetMathMacroTemplate). These are insets, and therefore they should be named as insets. It helps understanding mathed sources IMO (I have been looking a lot at these

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Le 03/07/17 à 20:48, Richard Heck a écrit : I left the *.ui files, since these are (typically) auto-generated, and Qt Designer will do as it pleases. Good point :) JMarc

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On 07/03/2017 02:09 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 03/07/17 à 19:58, Richard Heck a écrit : >> These are the files that still have trailing whitespace: > > Makefile.am, *.m files and tex2lyx/tex2lyx.1in can be trimmed. *ui > file probably too. I left the *.ui files, since these are

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

Le 03/07/17 à 19:58, Richard Heck a écrit : These are the files that still have trailing whitespace: Thanks for doiing it, Richard. Makefile.am, *.m files and tex2lyx/tex2lyx.1in can be trimmed. *ui file probably too. I think that *.lyx files should not be touched, since spaces can be at

Re: Cleanup before 2.3.0?

On 07/03/2017 05:26 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > Hi there, > > Since we are approaching major release, I think it is a good time to > do some mechanical clean-ups. The idea is that it is better to do it > now instead of at the beginning of a cycle in order to ease > backporting of patches