On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Gregory Jefferis <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-10-23 16:40, "Richard Heck" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> BUT...perhaps we could avoid going forward by allowing LyX to calculate >> the hash value. I'd guess that it is easy to check if we have a hash >> value or not, right? If not, then we can calculate it. Maybe we need >> such code, anyway, in case there's some corruption of the headers? > > OK that's what I was wondering. When I wrote my patch for LyX, I had it > make a hash if one was missing. I can't quite remember what Vincent did - > it might well be better to calculate the hash in LyX only.
I think LyX can now read documents with any identifier, whether it's a hash value or not. Only for new authors the identifier is computed as the hash value. For authors that already existed in the document, I use the identifier that is in the document. So, there is no need to convert to hash values, so no forward conversion is necessary. My first commit already converts the author ids to 0,1,2,3. I forgot that when I sent the previous mail. The idea behind the previous patch (of some months ago) was to keep the author numbers constant. Even though, I didn't use hash values, I could have values 0, 3, 5, 6, 12 and so forth. I already converted these to 0,1,2,3,4. Only later, when you reminded me that hash values are really necessary in case two authors edit at the same time, it will be impossible to properly merge the documents. I think there is no need to do anything to lyx2lyx. > Vincent can confirm behaviour exactly (and so can I once I have compiled > latest LyX 2.0) You're right. Vicnent
