Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> El 23.04.2017 a las 08:59, Scott Kostyshak escribió:
> 
> > Uwe, I noticed that there are no changes about 2.3.0alpha1 mentioned in
> > 
> >development/Win32/packaging/installer/ChangeLog.txt
> > 
> > Have there been changes and we just haven't documented them?
> 
> I hold them back because master was closed.
> I have the installer ready and also tested it yesterday with current master.
> Everything seems to work fine.

Good! Hopefully everything works as smoothly from the tar.

> > If you
> > would like to document them for alpha1, you can commit changes to that
> > file to master.
> 
> OK, I will put it in then.

Thanks,

Scott

> I'll also put in the recent documentation file
> changes from branch.
> 
> regards Uwe


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Uwe Stöhr]

El 23.04.2017 a las 08:59, Scott Kostyshak escribió:


Uwe, I noticed that there are no changes about 2.3.0alpha1 mentioned in

   development/Win32/packaging/installer/ChangeLog.txt

Have there been changes and we just haven't documented them?


I hold them back because master was closed.
I have the installer ready and also tested it yesterday with current 
master. Everything seems to work fine.



If you
would like to document them for alpha1, you can commit changes to that
file to master.


OK, I will put it in then. I'll also put in the recent documentation 
file changes from branch.


regards Uwe

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:50:21AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> As discussed [1], the current plan is to release alpha1 on Saturday.

The release is delayed because of my poor planning. I hope to tag and
tar within 24 hours.

Apologies for the inconvenience.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:50:21AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

> Please do not make any commits to master today after 22h00 UTC until
> master is open again.

Uwe, I noticed that there are no changes about 2.3.0alpha1 mentioned in

  development/Win32/packaging/installer/ChangeLog.txt

Have there been changes and we just haven't documented them? If you
would like to document them for alpha1, you can commit changes to that
file to master.

If there aren't supposed to be any changes added to that file, please
ignore this message.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:29:48PM +0200, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
> On 22/04/2017 22:59, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Ah yes, thanks for remembering about that! If you have the time, can you
> > take a look at lib/RELEASE-NOTES? I think we need entries for the
> > category about pref variables that were added, and also "caveats when
> > upgrading from earlier versions".
> > 
> > If you happen to have time to do that in the next couple of hours, that
> > would be great. If you don't have the time, don't worry---I will make my
> > best attempt.
> 
> [35bcc38c/lyxgit].

Looks good. Thanks.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Tommaso Cucinotta]

On 22/04/2017 22:59, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

Ah yes, thanks for remembering about that! If you have the time, can you
take a look at lib/RELEASE-NOTES? I think we need entries for the
category about pref variables that were added, and also "caveats when
upgrading from earlier versions".

If you happen to have time to do that in the next couple of hours, that
would be great. If you don't have the time, don't worry---I will make my
best attempt.


[35bcc38c/lyxgit].

Thanks,

T.

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:34:42PM +0200, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> do we have/need anything in the news, as well as in the manual, about the new 
> 'needauth' converters flag, the security precautions (dialog asking the 
> user), and prefs options ?

Ah yes, thanks for remembering about that! If you have the time, can you
take a look at lib/RELEASE-NOTES? I think we need entries for the
category about pref variables that were added, and also "caveats when
upgrading from earlier versions".

If you happen to have time to do that in the next couple of hours, that
would be great. If you don't have the time, don't worry---I will make my
best attempt.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Tommaso Cucinotta]

Hi,

do we have/need anything in the news, as well as in the manual, about the new 
'needauth' converters flag, the security precautions (dialog asking the user), 
and prefs options ?

T.

On 21/04/2017 07:50, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

Dear all,

As discussed [1], the current plan is to release alpha1 on Saturday.

Please do not make any commits to master today after 22h00 UTC until
master is open again. Between now and 22h00 UTC, please only make
commits that:

  (1) are very safe

and

  (2) you are confident do not break any of the ctests

If there is a strong reason to break one of those two criteria, please
start a discussion on the list explaining why an exception should be
made.

Otherwise, please just wait until after alpha1.

After 22h00 UTC, I will run all of the ctests, as well as compilation
tests for various configurations. Assuming all tests pass, I'll then tag
and tar alpha1 and send the tar out for packaging.

Scott

[1] 
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=20170410034041.ijhka562h55j3qez%40steph

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 08:52:01AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-04-21, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:59:30PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >> On Apr 21, 2017 1:45 PM, "Guenter Milde"  wrote:
> 
> >> > There is no consensus about the right approach to the "dash problem".
> >> > Therefore, this is only a minimal, "stop gap" proposal.
> >> >
> 
> >> I see. Would you guess there is any opposition from those who participated
> >> in the "great dash debate" to this temporary proposal?
> 
> I guess, that there is opposition or at least a "I neesd time to have a proper
> look".

OK thanks.

> > To be clear, if you do not think anyone would oppose, please go ahead
> > and make the changes you suggest.
> 
> I tried to implement the suggested changes locally but it turned out to be
> too complex for a last-minute patch.

OK. I should have followed this topic more closely and I should have put
an email out earlier than I did asking about any urgent pending issues.
I think my mindset was to just get alpha out on time without delays.
I'll be better about asking for beta blockers though so we have enough
time to give each a proper discussion.

Thanks for your time on this issue.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Guenter Milde]

On 2017-04-21, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:59:30PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 2017 1:45 PM, "Guenter Milde"  wrote:

>> > There is no consensus about the right approach to the "dash problem".
>> > Therefore, this is only a minimal, "stop gap" proposal.
>> >

>> I see. Would you guess there is any opposition from those who participated
>> in the "great dash debate" to this temporary proposal?

I guess, that there is opposition or at least a "I neesd time to have a proper
look".

> To be clear, if you do not think anyone would oppose, please go ahead
> and make the changes you suggest.

I tried to implement the suggested changes locally but it turned out to be
too complex for a last-minute patch.

A proper analysis will follow.

Günter

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:59:30PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2017 1:45 PM, "Guenter Milde"  wrote:
> >
> > On 2017-04-21, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >
> > > Is there consensus that this is the right approach?
> >
> > There is no consensus about the right approach to the "dash problem".
> > Therefore, this is only a minimal, "stop gap" proposal.
> >
> 
> I see. Would you guess there is any opposition from those who participated
> in the "great dash debate" to this temporary proposal?

To be clear, if you do not think anyone would oppose, please go ahead
and make the changes you suggest.

Thanks,

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Apr 21, 2017 1:45 PM, "Guenter Milde"  wrote:
>
> On 2017-04-21, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
> > Is there consensus that this is the right approach?
>
> There is no consensus about the right approach to the "dash problem".
> Therefore, this is only a minimal, "stop gap" proposal.
>

I see. Would you guess there is any opposition from those who participated
in the "great dash debate" to this temporary proposal?

Scott

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Apr 21, 2017 12:45 PM, "Guenter Milde"  wrote:
>
> On 2017-04-21, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 21/04/2017 à 14:20, Guenter Milde a écrit :
> >> I propose a simple change to the lyx2lyx conversions for now:
>
> >> User a closed ERT inset for ligature dashes in pre-2.2 documents:
>
> >> 2.1  <->  2.2
> >> --   <->  ERT --
> >> ---  <->  ERT ---
>
> > Would that mean that all 2.1 documents that use long hyphens will now be
> > littered with ERT? Is that supposed to be temporary?
>
> Yes and yes.
>
> In 2.2, ERT is the only way to ensure no info is lost, because there is no
> internal construct for "ligature dashes".
>
> Actually, pre-2.2 documents used "raw LaTeX" for the ligature dashes, too.
> So when converting them to ERT,
> * the content "--" or "---" is the same,
> * the GUI shows the same symbolsm, just in different colour.
>
> In 2.3.alpha, we can alternatively use literal dashes with the "use
> ligature dashes" setting instead of ERT, if the document does not contain
> literal dashes.  (2.3.0 should use special chars for ligature dashes.)
>
> When converting older documents to 2.3 with lyx2lyx, set
> \use-ligature-dashes false, if the document contains literal dashes
> (instead of depending on the document's fileformat version).

If you are confident there are no disagreements from others (I remember
some disagreement with how to handle dashes but I think that was resolved)
and you want this in alpha to prevent data loss and for testing, then
please go ahead and do what you think is best.

Scott
>
> Günter
>

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Guenter Milde]

On 2017-04-21, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:20:47PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:

>> Dear Scott,

>> > As discussed [1], the current plan is to release alpha1 on Saturday.

>> > Please do not make any commits to master today after 22h00 UTC until
>> > master is open again. Between now and 22h00 UTC, please only make
>> > commits that:

>> >   (1) are very safe
>> > and
>> >   (2) you are confident do not break any of the ctests

>> > If there is a strong reason to break one of those two criteria, please
>> > start a discussion on the list explaining why an exception should be
>> > made.

>> there is a risk of further information loss in the em-dash conversion
>> workaround. I wrote an analysis and suggestion on 31 Mar 2017
...

>> I propose a simple change to the lyx2lyx conversions for now:

>> User a closed ERT inset for ligature dashes in pre-2.2 documents:

>> 2.1  <->  2.2
>> --   <->  ERT --
>> ---  <->  ERT ---


> Is the risk of information loss only on documents created before 2.2.x
> format?

No.

The problems with the current state are:

1. Pre-2.2 documents using literal dashes were not affected by the change
   in 2.2 but now they require user-interaction (unchecking
   use-ligature-dashes) to work as before.
  
2. Opening pre 2.2 documents in 2.2 or 2.3 destroys information whether
   a dash was a literal dash or a "ligature" dash.

3. Back-conversion of 2.3 documents destroys information whether dashes
   shall be exported as literal characters or ligatures.

4. Different behaviour for documents with non-TeX fonts when compiled with
   LuaTeX.


>> This would require a change to lyx2lyx/lyx_2_2.py (functions
>> convert/revert_dashes) and lyx2lyx/lyx_2_3.py 
>> (convert/revert_dashligatures).

> Is there consensus that this is the right approach?

There is no consensus about the right approach to the "dash problem".
Therefore, this is only a minimal, "stop gap" proposal.

Günter

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Guenter Milde]

On 2017-04-21, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 21/04/2017 à 14:20, Guenter Milde a écrit :
>> I propose a simple change to the lyx2lyx conversions for now:

>> User a closed ERT inset for ligature dashes in pre-2.2 documents:

>> 2.1  <->  2.2
>> --   <->  ERT --
>> ---  <->  ERT ---

> Would that mean that all 2.1 documents that use long hyphens will now be
> littered with ERT? Is that supposed to be temporary?

Yes and yes.

In 2.2, ERT is the only way to ensure no info is lost, because there is no
internal construct for "ligature dashes".

Actually, pre-2.2 documents used "raw LaTeX" for the ligature dashes, too.
So when converting them to ERT,
* the content "--" or "---" is the same,
* the GUI shows the same symbolsm, just in different colour.

In 2.3.alpha, we can alternatively use literal dashes with the "use
ligature dashes" setting instead of ERT, if the document does not contain
literal dashes.  (2.3.0 should use special chars for ligature dashes.)

When converting older documents to 2.3 with lyx2lyx, set
\use-ligature-dashes false, if the document contains literal dashes
(instead of depending on the document's fileformat version).

Günter

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 21/04/2017 à 14:20, Guenter Milde a écrit :

I propose a simple change to the lyx2lyx conversions for now:

User a closed ERT inset for ligature dashes in pre-2.2 documents:

2.1  <->  2.2
--   <->  ERT --
---  <->  ERT ---


Would that mean that all 2.1 documents that use long hyphens will now be 
littered with ERT? Is that supposed to be temporary?


JMarc

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:20:47PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> Dear Scott,
> 
> > As discussed [1], the current plan is to release alpha1 on Saturday.
> 
> > Please do not make any commits to master today after 22h00 UTC until
> > master is open again. Between now and 22h00 UTC, please only make
> > commits that:
> 
> >   (1) are very safe
> 
> > and
> 
> >   (2) you are confident do not break any of the ctests
> 
> > If there is a strong reason to break one of those two criteria, please
> > start a discussion on the list explaining why an exception should be
> > made.
> 
> there is a risk of further information loss in the em-dash conversion
> workaround. I wrote an analysis and suggestion on 31 Mar 2017 but waited
> with action becaus of missing feedback and because I wanted the "allowbreak"
> special char to be present first.
> 
> I propose a simple change to the lyx2lyx conversions for now:
> 
> User a closed ERT inset for ligature dashes in pre-2.2 documents:
> 
> 2.1  <->  2.2
> --   <->  ERT --
> ---  <->  ERT ---
>   

Is the risk of information loss only on documents created before 2.2.x
format?

> This would require a change to lyx2lyx/lyx_2_2.py (functions
> convert/revert_dashes) and lyx2lyx/lyx_2_3.py 
> (convert/revert_dashligatures).

Is there consensus that this is the right approach?

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: master closed today at 22h00 UTC for 2.3.0alpha1

[Guenter Milde]

Dear Scott,

> As discussed [1], the current plan is to release alpha1 on Saturday.

> Please do not make any commits to master today after 22h00 UTC until
> master is open again. Between now and 22h00 UTC, please only make
> commits that:

>   (1) are very safe

> and

>   (2) you are confident do not break any of the ctests

> If there is a strong reason to break one of those two criteria, please
> start a discussion on the list explaining why an exception should be
> made.

there is a risk of further information loss in the em-dash conversion
workaround. I wrote an analysis and suggestion on 31 Mar 2017 but waited
with action becaus of missing feedback and because I wanted the "allowbreak"
special char to be present first.

I propose a simple change to the lyx2lyx conversions for now:

User a closed ERT inset for ligature dashes in pre-2.2 documents:

2.1  <->  2.2
--   <->  ERT --
---  <->  ERT ---

This would require a change to lyx2lyx/lyx_2_2.py (functions
convert/revert_dashes) and lyx2lyx/lyx_2_3.py 
(convert/revert_dashligatures).

I may be able to do the changes but I am not sure whether I would manage to
fix the tests.

Günter