Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Le 30/05/2017 à 21:12, Richard Heck a écrit : Richard, this is about using QTextlayout caching for MacOS with Qt5. Qt5 is supposed to do caching, but it is very inefficient on MacOS with ancient Hebrew. OK for 2.2.4? Sure. Thanks. I just did it. JMarc

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 05/30/2017 08:39 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 04/05/2017 à 11:26, Stephan Witt a écrit : I liked to use it since then for anything Hebrew. Performance was quite noticeably improved. With Hebrew this was not perfect but much, much better. >>> >>> So we might want to

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Le 04/05/2017 à 11:26, Stephan Witt a écrit : I liked to use it since then for anything Hebrew. Performance was quite noticeably improved. With Hebrew this was not perfect but much, much better. So we might want to include it. Stephan, what do you think. It would be nice for 2.2.3 too. I

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 15.05.17 10:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 14/05/2017 à 21:23, Stephan Witt a écrit : >> I tried to get some numbers. The numbers I got with Instruments were unclear. >> The time to go through the english users guide with and w/o the patch is the >> same. >> The time to go through the

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Le 14/05/2017 à 21:23, Stephan Witt a écrit : I tried to get some numbers. The numbers I got with Instruments were unclear. The time to go through the english users guide with and w/o the patch is the same. The time to go through the hebrew tutorial is not very different. I’ll attach the

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Am 04.05.2017 um 11:26 schrieb Stephan Witt : > > Am 04.05.2017 um 10:21 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : >> >> Le 02/05/2017 à 22:26, mn a écrit : Mike, did ever get a chance to test with the patch that I sent? I am a bit lost whether this restores

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Am 04.05.2017 um 10:21 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > > Le 02/05/2017 à 22:26, mn a écrit : >>> Mike, did ever get a chance to test with the patch that I sent? I am a >>> bit lost whether this restores the performance. Is there a big >>> difference in terms of memory use? >>

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 18.04.17 14:10, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 17/04/2017 à 22:17, mn a écrit : >> This zip-file contains info applied to the same situation as described above. >> I hope that it shows enough indention for your purposes? > > This is very useful. The interesting lines are: > 13028.0ms 50.0%

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Am 15.04.2017 um 15:06 schrieb mn : > > On 15.04.17 14:29, Stephan Witt wrote: >> >>> Am 15.04.2017 um 10:08 schrieb mn : >>> >>> On 14.04.17 22:31, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 12.04.2017 um 21:51 schrieb mn : >>> >> SVGs are already

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Le 17/04/2017 à 10:56, mn a écrit : On 15.04.17 19:35, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 12/04/2017 à 12:31, mn a écrit : While editing spellchecker is always off, as are insets closed (well most) and source view and the like. 2.2.2 is still slow and grows slower over time. Any improvement in

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Le 16/04/2017 à 13:43, mn a écrit : The problem seems to be at least two-fold: - Using two much Hebrew it decelerates quickly. - But using only one (latin) language and just leaving the app open (by accident leaving the app open for three days hidden) also causes a massive slow down, so that I

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 15.04.17 22:47, Stephan Witt wrote:> >> Am 15.04.2017 um 19:35 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes >> : >> Le 12/04/2017 à 12:31, mn a écrit : >>> While editing spellchecker is always off, as are insets closed >>> (well most) and source view and the like. 2.2.2 is still slow and

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

> Am 15.04.2017 um 19:35 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > > Le 12/04/2017 à 12:31, mn a écrit : >> While editing spellchecker is always off, as are insets closed (well >> most) and source view and the like. 2.2.2 is still slow and grows slower >> over time. Any improvement in

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Le 12/04/2017 à 12:31, mn a écrit : While editing spellchecker is always off, as are insets closed (well most) and source view and the like. 2.2.2 is still slow and grows slower over time. Any improvement in that department thrills me. Is it related to ancient Hebrew slowness you mentioned a

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 15.04.17 14:29, Stephan Witt wrote: > >> Am 15.04.2017 um 10:08 schrieb mn : >> >> On 14.04.17 22:31, Stephan Witt wrote: >>> Am 12.04.2017 um 21:51 schrieb mn : >> > SVGs are already compressed. What procedure do you propose at >> shipping time?

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

> Am 15.04.2017 um 10:08 schrieb mn : > > On 14.04.17 22:31, Stephan Witt wrote: >> Am 12.04.2017 um 21:51 schrieb mn : > SVGs are already compressed. What procedure do you propose at > shipping time? >>> >>> >>> To use for example this:

Mac-packaging (was: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release)

On 15.04.17 10:08, mn wrote: >> The debug libraries were shipped accidentally - I’ve changed this. >> HFS+ compression seems to work and I’ll use it for alpha >> releases. >> > > Half of the plugins seem to be superfluous. Have you checked with > otool against the binary? > Just had a look

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 14.04.17 22:31, Stephan Witt wrote: > Am 12.04.2017 um 21:51 schrieb mn : >>> SVGs are already compressed. What procedure do you propose at shipping time? >> >> >> To use for example this: https://github.com/RazrFalcon/svgcleaner > > I don’t think such things belong to the

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:36:11AM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Dienstag, 11. April 2017 um 23:53:56, schrieb Pavel Sanda > > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > I hope others join this conversation. To alpha or not to alpha? > > > > If I was manager I would do aplha, do it quickly

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:11:11AM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > El 10.04.2017 a las 05:40, Scott Kostyshak escribió: > > > Uwe and Stephan, do you know if you will be available around these dates > > to produce binaries? > > I'm sorry, I cannot plan longer than about a week. I'll try to build a >

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Am 12.04.2017 um 21:51 schrieb mn : > > On 12.04.17 18:52, Stephan Witt wrote: > >> What are some of the present bugs / missing features you're >> referring to? I wonder if some workarounds are available... >>> - that apparently almost nobody was interested in

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 12.04.17 18:52, Stephan Witt wrote: > What are some of the present bugs / missing features you're > referring to? I wonder if some workarounds are available... >> - that apparently almost nobody was interested in reducing the filesize >> of the shipped images. PNG

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Am 12.04.2017 um 17:51 schrieb mn : > > On 12.04.17 16:13, Stephan Witt wrote: What are some of the present bugs / missing features you're referring to? I wonder if some workarounds are available... > - that apparently almost nobody was interested in reducing

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 12.04.17 16:13, Stephan Witt wrote: >>> What are some of the present bugs / missing features you're >>> referring to? I wonder if some workarounds are available... - that apparently almost nobody was interested in reducing the filesize of the shipped images. >>> That’s not

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Am 12.04.2017 um 14:34 schrieb mn : > > On 12.04.17 12:59, Stephan Witt wrote: >> What are some of the present bugs / missing features you're >> referring to? I wonder if some workarounds are available... > The part below I don’t understand. What exactly is the

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 12.04.17 12:59, Stephan Witt wrote: > What are some of the present bugs / missing features you're > referring to? I wonder if some workarounds are available... >>> The part below I don’t understand. What exactly is the message? >>> >> - that apparently almost nobody was interested in

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Am 12.04.2017 um 12:31 schrieb mn : > > On 12.04.17 11:43, Stephan Witt wrote: > What are some of the present bugs / missing features you're referring to? I wonder if some workarounds are available... >>> >>> The biggest bug imho is the slowness, worst on OS X. >>>

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 12.04.17 11:43, Stephan Witt wrote: >>> What are some of the present bugs / missing features you're >>> referring to? I wonder if some workarounds are available... >> >> The biggest bug imho is the slowness, worst on OS X. >> That's supposed to get a little bit better. > > In case you have

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Am 11.04.2017 um 18:46 schrieb mn : > > On 11.04.17 14:58, Joel Kulesza wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:38 AM, mn > >>> Right now, I am struggling with bugs and also features lacking in >>> the latest stable LyX. And for some at least I know they are supposed

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Am Dienstag, 11. April 2017 um 23:53:56, schrieb Pavel Sanda > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > I hope others join this conversation. To alpha or not to alpha? > > If I was manager I would do aplha, do it quickly with very low > reuirements for bugs solved or fetures

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > I hope others join this conversation. To alpha or not to alpha? If I was manager I would do aplha, do it quickly with very low reuirements for bugs solved or fetures yet-to-be-delivered and clearly state that in announcement. No matter how better we became with autmated

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

El 10.04.2017 a las 05:40, Scott Kostyshak escribió: Uwe and Stephan, do you know if you will be available around these dates to produce binaries? I'm sorry, I cannot plan longer than about a week. I'll try to build a binary as soon as possible after you send me the link to the release ZIP

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Am Dienstag, den 11.04.2017, 18:46 +0200 schrieb mn: > The missing features I need are mainly complicated bibliographies, > biber > and biblatex support, properly working natively together; targeted > for 2.3? Yes, and already implemented in the master branch, as a matter of fact. Jürgen

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 11.04.17 14:58, Joel Kulesza wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:38 AM, mn >> Right now, I am struggling with bugs and also features lacking in >> the latest stable LyX. And for some at least I know they are supposed >> to be fixed or added in the next release so far, far on

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:38 AM, mn wrote: > Right now, I am struggling with bugs and also features lacking in the > latest stable LyX. And for some at least I know they are supposed to be > fixed or added in the next release so far, far on the horizon. > Mike, What are some of

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 11.04.17 04:45, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > The requirements and expectations of an alpha are low. I think it is > understood that there should not be any big features right before > the feature freeze. But doing it this way allows us to get an alpha > out quickly and get testing on 99% of the

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On 11/04/2017 2:45 p.m., Scott Kostyshak wrote: A second reason to keep the alpha is that very few Windows and Mac users can compile a development version. An alpha is nice in situations where we cannot reproduce a bug. We can ask users if they can still reproduce e.g. a serious crash that

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 09:46:45AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > It was proably discussed last time, but I do not remember: what is the > rationale for having an alpha before feature freeze? Shouldn't it be > the opposite? The requirements and expectations of an alpha are low. I think it

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Am 10.04.2017 um 05:40 schrieb Scott Kostyshak : > > Dear all, > > I think there is agreement that master is pretty stable. Besides just a > feeling, I think that this can be confirmed by looking at the trac > tickets with "2.3.0" milestone and tickets with the "regression" >

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On Monday, 10 April 2017 10.58.51 WEST Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > No, because doing everything by opposition to others is like doing doing > it like them: it is following their whim :-) > Seriously, I am not sure about the alpha release. It is serious work, > and I am not sure what we will

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Le 10/04/2017 à 11:27, José Abílio Matos a écrit : Again following your reasoning since everyone is abandoning the alpha release we should keep it. ;-) No, because doing everything by opposition to others is like doing doing it like them: it is following their whim :) Seriously, I am not

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

On Monday, 10 April 2017 08.46.45 WEST Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > It was proably discussed last time, but I do not remember: what is the > rationale for having an alpha before feature freeze? Shouldn't it be the > opposite? I think that this is the usual procedure. Take Fedora as an example,

Re: Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Le 10/04/2017 à 05:40, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : I think there is agreement that master is pretty stable. Besides just a feeling, I think that this can be confirmed by looking at the trac tickets with "2.3.0" milestone and tickets with the "regression" keyword. Yes, I think it is time to think

Tentative schedule for 2.3.0 release

Dear all, I think there is agreement that master is pretty stable. Besides just a feeling, I think that this can be confirmed by looking at the trac tickets with "2.3.0" milestone and tickets with the "regression" keyword. I propose the following schedule for the 2.3.0 release process: