On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 01:18:36PM +0200, Dekel Tsur wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:43:34AM +0000, John Levon wrote: > > > > Hmm OK, so lyx2lyx copes with versions its never asked to output in. > > > > So, feel free to bump the number add an empty file, only to remove it > > later, despite the fact everyone's fixed all their documents in the time > > we've been having this silly argument. > > We can use the suggestion I gave in a previous mail (always run lyx2lyx in > the development LyX), or use the following patch which doesn't require > new files for lyx2lyx.
Should I apply this patch ? The other method has the advantage of having consecutive file version numbers between stable releases, but it requires disabling a block of code before a release. Is it important to have consecutive versions ?
