On Tue, 2014-12-30 at 16:36 +0100, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> While reviewing the translation of "appendix" in the docs, I found in item 8 
> of 
> section 6.11.2 of Additional.lyx a reference to an “Appendices Section" 
> environment which seems outdated to me. The current version of LyX uses a 
> checkbox in the Document menu to start appendices.
> The remainig of the item is outdated as well, the layout introduces an 
> "Appendix" environment to replace the numeral numbering of appendices by a 
> litteral one when a plain section environment is used once the "Start 
> Appendix 
> here" checkbox is active. Currently LyX numbers sections in appendix with 
> litterals, so the Appendix environment is useless (it may coexist with 
> section 
> environment however, I've checked this).
> 
> I have edited the French translation accordingly. should I edit the English 
> version ?
> 
Hi Jean-Pierre

Two years ago when I had some time, I did a major revision of the
Additional features manual most of which had not been revised since
2004.

However, the changes I made were so extensive that it was not possible
to merge it into the tree.

Since the arrival of Lyx 2, I have provided successive skeleton versions
of the Additional manual, simply reordering the text of the existing
version into the proposed new order so that it could easily be merged
into git. My idea was that once the new skeleton had been merged I would
then revise each of the chapters as suggested in my original proposal
two years ago and submit them one by one so that the changes could be
merged gradually into git.

However, none of my skeletons have been merged. So the existing manual
consists of a lot of material from 2004 plus various sections added by
individual developers.

It seems to me that the team needs to take one of three decisions:
1 to abandon the Additional features manual and move the newer material
into other manuals
2 to accept the skeleton I proposed two years ago
3 to decide on a different approach to its revision and updating.

John


Reply via email to