Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 05/11/2015 20:25, Georg Baum a écrit : >> Guillaume Munch wrote: >> >>> In addition, what appears even more special to me is the number of times >>> when it produces the effects that you mention: the only times when a >>> per-user, per-document preference would not produce the same effect is >>> the very first time that the user edits the document. >> >> I do not understand this sentence. > > With a per-document setting: we are sure that it is always on after > opening (assuming nobody turns it off) > > With a per-user, per-document setting: we are sure that it is always on > after opening, except maybe the first time, but then the user has just > been told to enable change tracking anyway.
Thanks, now I understand. This would not be a problem IMO, if we decide that a per-user, per-document setting is the best choice then this follows naturally. >>> I am willing to >>> bet that that this happened fewer times overall in the past few months >>> for LyX's documentations than the number of times where I had to >>> synchronise with my co-author in the same time frame for a single >>> article. And in any case, having change tracking set automatically on >>> opening is not enough, because you still have to tell new contributors >>> that it is important to track changes. Or did I miss something from your >>> argument? >> >> Well, you need to tell them not to mess with certain settings anyway >> (page format, font size, or all document wide settings, whatever is >> applicable in the specific context). If they do not change document >> settings, then everything is OK. > > I am not sure if we agree or if I missed your point. Then I fear I do not understand what you wanted to say. >> I think there is general consensus about \justification and >> \output_changes, so if this is OK with Scott you could move these to >> preferences, but for \track_changes I do not see a consensus, so this >> setting should not be changed so short before a release IMHO. > > > I think that there are still valid points to be discussed, before we > resort to democracy. Democracy is not the point IMHO: The point is not to further delay the release. Implementing a small and safe file format change where everybody agrees that it is useful does not produce a significant delay. Discussing a controversal change where no easy solution is in sight has the potential of delaying the release (at least if the possibility of implementing the change before the release is seriously considered). Therefore I think that it is not the right time right now to have this discussion. > Also, it would help to have an idea of the schedule for format freeze. Yes. Georg
