On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Uwe Sthr wrote:
...because manuals should be as dry as dust, and so boring that nobody
looks at them?
Yes of course ;-) I mean commands like If you use Export-PostScript
you can start drinking a coffee (translated from the german docs). If
users
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Uwe StÃhr wrote:
> >...because manuals should be as dry as dust, and so boring that nobody
> >looks at them?
>
> Yes of course ;-) I mean commands like "If you use Export->PostScript
> you can start drinking a coffee" (translated from the german docs).
John Weiss wrote:
A master document including the parts is a good idea; maybe the
individual
parts can still be rewritten some so they don't repeat to much.
The repetition was added, intentionally, after I was told that I had
the wrong balance.
Change the individual docs to reduce the
John Weiss wrote:
A master document including the parts is a good idea; maybe the
individual
parts can still be rewritten some so they don't repeat to much.
The repetition was added, intentionally, after I was told that I had
the wrong balance.
Change the individual docs to reduce the
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:07:27AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Uwe == Uwe Stöhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uwe John Weiss wrote:
Doesn't follow a strucutred concept, eh? Maybe you should read the
mailling list archives before insulting me.
Uwe Sorry I wouldn't harm anybody. I
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
John Weiss wrote:
Doesn't follow a structured concept, eh?
Maybe you should read the mailling list archives before insulting me.
Sorry I wouldn't harm anybody. I didn't know that there is an active doc
maintainer. I asked that on
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 05:20:49PM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote:
Use a separate doc and include it via a master doc.
I was thinking about that. Other than the book will have a lot of
redundant information.
Yes, that is a problem, isn't it?
One of
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:07:27AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Uwe" == Uwe Stöhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Uwe> John Weiss wrote:
> >> Doesn't follow a strucutred concept, eh? Maybe you should read the
> >> mailling list archives before insulting me.
>
> Uwe> Sorry I
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> John Weiss wrote:
>
> >Doesn't follow a structured concept, eh?
> >Maybe you should read the mailling list archives before insulting me.
>
> Sorry I wouldn't harm anybody. I didn't know that there is an active doc
> maintainer. I asked
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 05:20:49PM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote:
>
> > Use a separate doc and include it via a master doc.
>
> I was thinking about that. Other than the book will have a lot of
> redundant information.
Yes, that is a problem, isn't it?
>
Uwe == Uwe Stöhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uwe John Weiss wrote:
Doesn't follow a strucutred concept, eh? Maybe you should read the
mailling list archives before insulting me.
Uwe Sorry I wouldn't harm anybody. I didn't know that there is an
Uwe active doc maintainer. I asked that on the
> "Uwe" == Uwe Stöhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Uwe> John Weiss wrote:
>> Doesn't follow a strucutred concept, eh? Maybe you should read the
>> mailling list archives before insulting me.
Uwe> Sorry I wouldn't harm anybody. I didn't know that there is an
Uwe> active doc maintainer. I asked
John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:35:11PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>>
>> Reasons:
>> First I just wanted to update the documentation for LyX QT 1.3.x and
>> make a bit more platform independent. But while working on the
>> UserGuide, I realized that it is
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:34:29PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Indeed. Having it in the UserGuide only serves people masochistic enough
to read it either as .lyx in a text editor before installation or after
installation to see what might have sped up the installation...
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:41:56AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
I though if the goal is to have a printed book, then the installation
should be covered also.
Use a separate doc and include it via a master doc.
Jeremy, Uwe, you guys are MAKING ME VERY NERVOUS with your
near-fixation on making
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote:
Use a separate doc and include it via a master doc.
I was thinking about that. Other than the book will have a lot of
redundant information.
Jeremy, Uwe, you guys are MAKING ME VERY NERVOUS with your
near-fixation on making a printable version to the
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:34:29PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> >Indeed. Having it in the UserGuide only serves people masochistic enough
> >to read it either as .lyx in a text editor before installation or after
> >installation to see what might have sped up the
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:41:56AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>
> I though if the goal is to have a printed book, then the installation
> should be covered also.
Use a separate doc and include it via a master doc.
Jeremy, Uwe, you guys are MAKING ME VERY NERVOUS with your
near-fixation on
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote:
> Use a separate doc and include it via a master doc.
I was thinking about that. Other than the book will have a lot of
redundant information.
> Jeremy, Uwe, you guys are MAKING ME VERY NERVOUS with your
> near-fixation on making a printable version to the
John Weiss wrote:
Doesn't follow a strucutred concept, eh?
Maybe you should read the mailling list archives before insulting me.
Sorry I wouldn't harm anybody. I didn't know that there is an active doc
maintainer. I asked that on the docs- list a year ago and nobody replied.
Are you the current
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 04:11:09PM +, John Levon wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:35:11PM +0100, Uwe St?hr wrote:
The UserGuide will also have a short section about needed programs
and install issues for the platforms Linux/Unix, Mac and Win.
IMO, whilst such docs would be great,
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:58:08PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
BTW. If LyX 1.4 is such a big step to the future why don't we name it
LyX 2.0?
Because most of the infrastructure changes will bear user visible fruit
only in the next release, or even later.
Btw2 Is it planned to release LyX 1.4
Uwe == Uwe Stöhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uwe Georg Baum wrote:
I see one problem: What happens to the 1.4 documentation? At some
point one would need to merge your changes back. Did you consider
to leave 1.3 as is and modify 1.4 instead? This would avoid some
additional work. IMHO we
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
So, to make things clear, your target version is 1.4.0, right?
Yes it is.
regards Uwe
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:41:56AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Uwe Sthr wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Indeed. Having it in the UserGuide only serves people masochistic enough
to read it either as .lyx in a text editor before installation or after
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 04:11:09PM +, John Levon wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:35:11PM +0100, Uwe St?hr wrote:
>
> > The UserGuide will also have a short section about needed programs
> > and install issues for the platforms Linux/Unix, Mac and Win.
>
> IMO, whilst such docs would
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:58:08PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> BTW. If LyX 1.4 is such a big step to the future why don't we name it
> LyX 2.0?
Because most of the infrastructure changes will bear user visible fruit
only in the next release, or even later.
> Btw2 Is it planned to release LyX 1.4
> "Uwe" == Uwe Stöhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Uwe> Georg Baum wrote:
>> I see one problem: What happens to the 1.4 documentation? At some
>> point one would need to merge your changes back. Did you consider
>> to leave 1.3 as is and modify 1.4 instead? This would avoid some
>> additional
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
So, to make things clear, your target version is 1.4.0, right?
Yes it is.
regards Uwe
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:41:56AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>
> > Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > > Indeed. Having it in the UserGuide only serves people masochistic enough
> > > to read it either as .lyx in a text editor before installation or
Hi Uwe,
I would rework the Tutorial and the UserGuide.
The UserGuide will also have a short section about needed programs and
install issues for the platforms Linux/Unix, Mac and Win.
Hmmm... Does this make sense? If the user is able to read the UserGuide, he
already managed to install LyX.
Andre Poenitz wrote:
[...] As koma-script is no longer part of the default installation of
VTeX and MikTeX,
[Why btw? Sounds like a strange decision ...]
The author of koma-script complained about the inclusion of his package
to MikTeX. MikTeX has a different (but very user friendly) package
Georg Baum wrote:
I see one problem: What happens to the 1.4 documentation? At some point
one would need to merge your changes back. Did you consider to leave 1.3
as is and modify 1.4 instead? This would avoid some additional work. IMHO
we should not put too much effort in 1.3 anymore but
Michael Schmitt wrote:
The UserGuide will also have a short section about needed programs
and install issues for the platforms Linux/Unix, Mac and Win.
Hmmm... Does this make sense? If the user is able to read the UserGuide,
he already managed to install LyX. Installation issues should be
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
[...] As koma-script is no longer part of the default installation of
VTeX and MikTeX,
[Why btw? Sounds like a strange decision ...]
The author of koma-script complained about the inclusion of his package
to MikTeX.
no, Markus never complained, that his
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:35:11PM +0100, Uwe St?hr wrote:
The UserGuide will also have a short section about needed programs
and install issues for the platforms Linux/Unix, Mac and Win.
IMO, whilst such docs would be great, the User Guide is the wrong place
for it. I'd prefer such stuff
Am Sonntag, 9. Januar 2005 15:34 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
I started with the UserGuide found in the CVS under lib/docs. I thaught
it is the version for LyX 1.4. If not where can I get the right one?
This is correct if it is the HEAD branch. I thought you used 1.3 because
you wrote that you wanted
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Indeed. Having it in the UserGuide only serves people masochistic enough
to read it either as .lyx in a text editor before installation or after
installation to see what might have sped up the installation...
You are right, I dropped this now.
thanks Uwe
Hi Uwe,
I would rework the Tutorial and the UserGuide.
The UserGuide will also have a short section about needed programs and
install issues for the platforms Linux/Unix, Mac and Win.
Hmmm... Does this make sense? If the user is able to read the UserGuide, he
already managed to install LyX.
Andre Poenitz wrote:
[...] As koma-script is no longer part of the default installation of
VTeX and MikTeX,
[Why btw? Sounds like a strange decision ...]
The author of koma-script complained about the inclusion of his package
to MikTeX. MikTeX has a different (but very user friendly) package
Georg Baum wrote:
I see one problem: What happens to the 1.4 documentation? At some point
one would need to merge your changes back. Did you consider to leave 1.3
as is and modify 1.4 instead? This would avoid some additional work. IMHO
we should not put too much effort in 1.3 anymore but
Michael Schmitt wrote:
The UserGuide will also have a short section about needed programs
and install issues for the platforms Linux/Unix, Mac and Win.
Hmmm... Does this make sense? If the user is able to read the UserGuide,
he already managed to install LyX. Installation issues should be
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
[...] As koma-script is no longer part of the default installation of
VTeX and MikTeX,
[Why btw? Sounds like a strange decision ...]
The author of koma-script complained about the inclusion of his package
to MikTeX.
no, Markus never complained, that his
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:35:11PM +0100, Uwe St?hr wrote:
> The UserGuide will also have a short section about needed programs
> and install issues for the platforms Linux/Unix, Mac and Win.
IMO, whilst such docs would be great, the User Guide is the wrong place
for it. I'd prefer such stuff
Am Sonntag, 9. Januar 2005 15:34 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
> I started with the UserGuide found in the CVS under lib/docs. I thaught
> it is the version for LyX 1.4. If not where can I get the right one?
This is correct if it is the HEAD branch. I thought you used 1.3 because
you wrote that you
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:35:11PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Plans: I would rework the Tutorial and the UserGuide. [...]
I don't think anybody is going to stop you. Not me at least.
> But I want to delete platform specifig stuff like "Configuring the X
> keyboard" etc. and ironic comments.
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Indeed. Having it in the UserGuide only serves people masochistic enough
to read it either as .lyx in a text editor before installation or after
installation to see what might have sped up the installation...
You are right, I dropped this now.
thanks Uwe
47 matches
Mail list logo
