On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> It *should* (and has been tested). If it does not, we would be really >> interested in knowing. > > Uhh beamer went through radical change in 2.1, if you do some nontrivial > stuff there then 2.0 <-> 2.1 interchange might be problem. > > Pavel
Agreed. I meant for the * around "should" to convey that it should *in theory* work but I think my written communication needs improvement. I agree that nontrivial Beamer code could be a problem. Even in this case we still want to know about it. Scott
