On 11/22/2015 07:29 AM, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 17/11/2015 21:36, Georg Baum a écrit : >> Guillaume Munch wrote: >> >>> Le 08/11/2015 16:16, Georg Baum a écrit : >>>> >>>> If I understood Vincent correctly then it would not be a file format >>>> change IMHO: >>>> >>>> As I understood it, he referred to the suggestion that the "track >>>> changes" button would be decoupled from \track_changes in the file: >>>> \track_changes would set the state of the button on opening a >>>> document, >>>> but changing the change tracking status would not write back >>>> anything to >>>> the file. >>> >>> What I understood as well, up to minor points (if \track_changes is set >>> to false, then we can fall back to the per-user, per-document setting, >>> because I haven't heard people on the list make a use case out of >>> forcing CT to be disabled on opening...). >> >> This introduces some unsymmetry, but you are right, I don't know of a >> use >> case for forcing CT off either. >> >>>> There >>>> would be a separate lfun for setting the default in the file. >>> >>> A minor technical question: there are no LFUN for document settings >>> usually right? You are suggesting a new LFUN for convenience? >> >> There are not many, but some exist (e.g. textclass-apply). I do not >> know why >> there are so few lfuns for document settings, but to me it looks >> natural to >> have one. >> >>>> In this case, the file syntax would be kept, but the meaning of >>>> \track_changes would change a bit. >>> >>> I made it a file format change because I imagined that we would have to >>> reset the state of the setting while converting, but good to know that >>> you are ready to obviate this step. >>> >>> >>>> After thinking a bit about this >>>> suggestion I believe it could be a good compromise for everybody, >>>> and I >>>> would not treat this as a file format change. >>> >>> Either that, or add a git mode, in which case it would be good to add >>> the setting before 2.2, even if it does not encompass everything right >>> from the start. Either suit me; it's a matter of LyX's philosophy as >>> per >>> my other message. >> >> I am not sure whether a git mode would be desirable. I believe that all >> issues observed so far can also be a problem without VCS, so I think >> solving >> them on a case by case basis helps more users. > > To be clearer, I did not literally mean a "git mode". Rather, a "do not > write user preferences to file" per-document setting similarly to > LibreOffice. I would rather avoid a catch-all option whose effect is > unclear to the user. > >> >>> Ping me if you finally find a consensus on whether there is a >>> consensus :) >> >> Actually I have no idea;-( I simply told my opinion. >> > > The discussion seems to orient towards adding new per-document settings > to avoid writing user preferences to files. The questions is whether we > want one option for all preferences (a "do not write user preferences to > file" option as above), or just make the fields \tracking_changes, etc., > independent from the current settings. > > I have already voiced that either is fine by me. I would also like to > point out that one possibility requires a (trivial) file format change, > the other not. Therefore if we wait until after 2.2 release I imagine > that there is going to be more pressure towards the latter solution. It > is better if members of this list voice their opinion now if they prefer > the global per-document setting.
I'm not sure about this. Changes to preference file format do require a format change for the preference files, accounted for by the prefs2prefs script. Like layout2layout, it is forward only. Richard
