On 2017-06-01, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:12:53PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2017-05-26, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 09:12:27AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> >> Günter has written a lot about what to do regarding em- and en-dashes. >> >> For more information, see: >> >> http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10543 >> >> Does anyone else have feedback on what should be done on this for 2.3.0? >> There is now a patch for stable attached to the ticket. >> Thanks to Enrico for the inset code. >> http://www.lyx.org/trac/raw-attachment/ticket/10543/0001-Keep-distinction-of-literal-dashes-vs-ligature-dashes-in-2-2.patch >> OK to commit? > Sorry, but I am opposed to this patch. You really mean to have all > en/em-dashes become ERT!!! So we have a conflict: When I asked >> How important is backwards compatibility for documents generated with LyX >> 2.1 or older? >> a) no need to restore after it's broken by 2.2. >> b) good but not required >> c) small changes tolerable as long as documents >> open and compile >> d) 100% backwards compatibility whenever possible. On 2017-05-31, Richard Heck wrote: > I believe the rule is (d). The reasoning is, that it is most annoying, if existing documents show different layout (line or page-breaks etc.) when compiled with a new LyX version, as this can easily go unnoticed until it is too late (document printed and submitted...). Note that the "ERT patch" is only for *stable*, i.e. 2.2.x. For 2.2, ERT is the only way to ensure full backwards compatibility. I am fine if the decision is not to restore full backwards compatibility in the last release in the 2.2 series. (Considering that in most cases the damage is already done.) I leave the decision to the release manager. Günter
