Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Freitag, den 06.10.2017, 10:32 +0200 schrieb racoon:
> I think that "natbib compatibility mode" as explained at
> 
> http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#toc6
> 
> is redundant if one uses lyx's new biblatex support. Is that correct?
> If 
> so I'll add at
> 
> http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#toc3
> 
> that these settings can be removed.

Yes, any module or local layout setting that uses the "Provides natbib
1" trick needs to be removed.

Jürgen

> 
> Daniel
> 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[racoon]

On 10.09.2017 11:13, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2017, 11:14 +0200 schrieb racoon:

On 10.09.2017 10:12, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

Yes, it would be nice to document issues there. Note that the
workaround was never officially supported, so the transition might
entails some caveats (although not too much hopefully).


I added what I did for the transition:

http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#sBibTeX.Biblatex_4


Thanks.



Unfortunately, I don't have time to look into possible caveats.


If further issues arise, we will add them there.


I think that "natbib compatibility mode" as explained at

http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#toc6

is redundant if one uses lyx's new biblatex support. Is that correct? If 
so I'll add at


http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#toc3

that these settings can be removed.

Daniel

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 06:24:40AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-09-06, Richard Heck wrote:
> > On 09/06/2017 02:08 AM, Anders Ekberg wrote:
> 
> >> Tested briefly on Mac latest OS and fresh TeX installation. Only
> >> problem was that the welcome document complains about unknown image
> >> format (svgz?) If that is ignored the document compiles fine except
> >> for that image, but it should preferably be fixed.
> 
> > I'm pretty sure this got reported earlier and was fixed recently.
> 
> Reported: yes, fixed: ???
> 
> Workaround: install Inkscape and run Tools>Reconfigure.
> 
> Problem: when using rsvg (or an rsvg based application??) as SVG->PDF
> converter, the pdflatex output freezes the Mac PDF previewer if several,
> originally SVG, graphics are on one output page. 
> (The adventurous may try with the LyX UserGuide)

Thanks, Günter. I agree we should fix this.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2017, 13:54 +0200 schrieb Murat Yildizoglu:
> To my experience, Lyx generates now this error when you have inserted
> a bibliography in the document but you do not have any citation in
> the document. This check is a good idea, but it should generate a
> warning instead of an error IMHO.

No, since it is an error, not a warning.

Jürgen

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Murat Yildizoglu]

To my experience, Lyx generates now this error when you have inserted a 
bibliography in the document but you do not have any citation in the document. 
This check is a good idea, but it should generate a warning instead of an error 
IMHO.
Murat

Le 10 sept. 2017 à 07:47 +0200, racoon , a écrit :
> On 09.09.2017 15:32, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 09.09.2017, 11:31 +0200 schrieb racoon:
> > > I have a document that works fine in 2.2 but generates an error in
> > > 2.3
> > >
> > > "I found no \citation commands---while reading file ..."
> >
> > Which bibliography processor do you have set?
>
> I had it set to automatic. Setting it to biber worked. Oddly enough it
> continued to work after setting it to automatic again.
>
> > > It uses Biblatex according to [1]. I know that native support for
> > > Biblatex has been introduced in 2.3. So will I have to change my
> > > documents where I used [1] somehow?
> >
> > You have to change it in order to use the native support. But you still
> > should be able to continue with the workaround.
>
> Maybe it would be nice to have a guide how to get from [1] to native
> support at [1]. Is there something like that? If not I can try to make
> the switch and write it down.
>
> Daniel
>
> >
> > Jürgen
> >
> > >
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > > [1] http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#toc3
> > >
>
>

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2017, 11:14 +0200 schrieb racoon:
> On 10.09.2017 10:12, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > Yes, it would be nice to document issues there. Note that the
> > workaround was never officially supported, so the transition might
> > entails some caveats (although not too much hopefully).
> 
> I added what I did for the transition:
> 
> http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#sBibTeX.Biblatex_4

Thanks.

> 
> Unfortunately, I don't have time to look into possible caveats.

If further issues arise, we will add them there.

Jürgen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[racoon]

On 10.09.2017 10:12, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

Yes, it would be nice to document issues there. Note that the
workaround was never officially supported, so the transition might
entails some caveats (although not too much hopefully).


I added what I did for the transition:

http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#sBibTeX.Biblatex_4

Unfortunately, I don't have time to look into possible caveats.

Daniel



Jürgen



Daniel



Jürgen



Daniel

[1] http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#toc3

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2017, 10:36 +0200 schrieb racoon:
> I noticed that the BibTex Bibliography dialog's Content field is
> blank 
> by default. Either this represents some "not set" value but then
> this 
> should be explicit and an option in the drop down menu, or "all
> cited 
> references" should be set by default.

Fixed.

> Also the dialog title should now be "Bib(la)Tex Bibliography" as is
> the 
> menu entry Insert > List / TOC > Bib(la)Tex Bibliography...

Fixed. The dialog now displays either "BibTeX Bibliography" or
"Biblatex Bibliography", as appropriate.

Jürgen

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2017, 10:36 +0200 schrieb racoon:
> By the way the usage of upper case is inconsistent. Either the T
> should 
> be lower or the l and x upper case. There is no upper case usage in 
> Document Settings > Bibliography for Biblatex but for BibTeX...

Thats's because Biblatex is spelled without CamelCase, as opposed to
BibTeX.

See the Biblatex manuals.

Jürgen

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[racoon]

On 10.09.2017 10:12, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2017, 07:49 +0200 schrieb racoon:

On 09.09.2017 15:32, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

Am Samstag, den 09.09.2017, 11:31 +0200 schrieb racoon:

I have a document that works fine in 2.2 but generates an error
in
2.3

"I found no \citation commands---while reading file ..."


Which bibliography processor do you have set?


I had it set to automatic. Setting it to biber worked. Oddly enough
it
continued to work after setting it to automatic again.


"Automatic" only does the right thing if you use native biblatex
support. Otherwise, it will select BibTeX, since LyX thinks you use
BibTeX.


It uses Biblatex according to [1]. I know that native support for
Biblatex has been introduced in 2.3. So will I have to change my
documents where I used [1] somehow?


You have to change it in order to use the native support. But you
still
should be able to continue with the workaround.


Maybe it would be nice to have a guide how to get from [1] to native
support at [1]. Is there something like that? If not I can try to
make
the switch and write it down.


Yes, it would be nice to document issues there. Note that the
workaround was never officially supported, so the transition might
entails some caveats (although not too much hopefully).


Okay, got it to work and will document my experience at [1].

I noticed that the BibTex Bibliography dialog's Content field is blank 
by default. Either this represents some "not set" value but then this 
should be explicit and an option in the drop down menu, or "all cited 
references" should be set by default.


Also the dialog title should now be "Bib(la)Tex Bibliography" as is the 
menu entry Insert > List / TOC > Bib(la)Tex Bibliography...


By the way the usage of upper case is inconsistent. Either the T should 
be lower or the l and x upper case. There is no upper case usage in 
Document Settings > Bibliography for Biblatex but for BibTeX...


Daniel



Jürgen



Daniel



Jürgen



Daniel

[1] http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#toc3

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2017, 09:53 +0200 schrieb racoon:
> On 10.09.2017 07:49, racoon wrote:
> > On 09.09.2017 15:32, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > > You have to change it in order to use the native support. But you
> > > still
> > > should be able to continue with the workaround.
> > 
> > Maybe it would be nice to have a guide how to get from [1] to
> > native 
> > support at [1]. Is there something like that? If not I can try to
> > make 
> > the switch and write it down.
> 
> Having set the native support, I get an error saying
> 
> LaTeX Error: \postnotedelim undefined.
> 
> It comes from a line in my preamble:
> 
> \renewcommand*{\postnotedelim}{\addcolon\space}

Biblatex is loaded after the user defined preamble. So all biblatex-
related code should be embraced in 

\AtBeginDocument{%
...
}

Jürgen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2017, 07:49 +0200 schrieb racoon:
> On 09.09.2017 15:32, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 09.09.2017, 11:31 +0200 schrieb racoon:
> > > I have a document that works fine in 2.2 but generates an error
> > > in
> > > 2.3
> > > 
> > > "I found no \citation commands---while reading file ..."
> > 
> > Which bibliography processor do you have set?
> 
> I had it set to automatic. Setting it to biber worked. Oddly enough
> it 
> continued to work after setting it to automatic again.

"Automatic" only does the right thing if you use native biblatex
support. Otherwise, it will select BibTeX, since LyX thinks you use
BibTeX.

> > > It uses Biblatex according to [1]. I know that native support for
> > > Biblatex has been introduced in 2.3. So will I have to change my
> > > documents where I used [1] somehow?
> > 
> > You have to change it in order to use the native support. But you
> > still
> > should be able to continue with the workaround.
> 
> Maybe it would be nice to have a guide how to get from [1] to native 
> support at [1]. Is there something like that? If not I can try to
> make 
> the switch and write it down.

Yes, it would be nice to document issues there. Note that the
workaround was never officially supported, so the transition might
entails some caveats (although not too much hopefully).

Jürgen

> 
> Daniel
> 
> > 
> > Jürgen
> > 
> > > 
> > > Daniel
> > > 
> > > [1] http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#toc3
> > > 
> 
> 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[racoon]

On 10.09.2017 07:49, racoon wrote:

On 09.09.2017 15:32, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

You have to change it in order to use the native support. But you still
should be able to continue with the workaround.


Maybe it would be nice to have a guide how to get from [1] to native 
support at [1]. Is there something like that? If not I can try to make 
the switch and write it down.


Having set the native support, I get an error saying

LaTeX Error: \postnotedelim undefined.

It comes from a line in my preamble:

\renewcommand*{\postnotedelim}{\addcolon\space}

I have the following options set for Biblatex:

style=authoryear, firstinits=true, natbib=true, backend=biber, 
doi=false, isbn=false, url=false


My guess is that I don't need to specify natbib and backend. But the 
error occurs with and without it.


Any ideas what I am doing wrong?

Daniel

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[racoon]

On 06.09.2017 01:25, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding 2.3.0beta1.
I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be
considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that
not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been many
bug reports.

If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g. "yes
I briefly tested and didn't find any issues".

If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files.

One useful way to test is to compile your current .lyx files. If you get
a LaTeX error where with a previous .lyx file you did not, then that
could be a bug.


One bug I just spotted:

http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10757

Daniel

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[racoon]

On 09.09.2017 15:32, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

Am Samstag, den 09.09.2017, 11:31 +0200 schrieb racoon:

I have a document that works fine in 2.2 but generates an error in
2.3

"I found no \citation commands---while reading file ..."


Which bibliography processor do you have set?


I had it set to automatic. Setting it to biber worked. Oddly enough it 
continued to work after setting it to automatic again.



It uses Biblatex according to [1]. I know that native support for
Biblatex has been introduced in 2.3. So will I have to change my
documents where I used [1] somehow?


You have to change it in order to use the native support. But you still
should be able to continue with the workaround.


Maybe it would be nice to have a guide how to get from [1] to native 
support at [1]. Is there something like that? If not I can try to make 
the switch and write it down.


Daniel



Jürgen



Daniel

[1] http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#toc3

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Samstag, den 09.09.2017, 11:31 +0200 schrieb racoon:
> I have a document that works fine in 2.2 but generates an error in
> 2.3
> 
> "I found no \citation commands---while reading file ..."

Which bibliography processor do you have set?

> It uses Biblatex according to [1]. I know that native support for 
> Biblatex has been introduced in 2.3. So will I have to change my 
> documents where I used [1] somehow?

You have to change it in order to use the native support. But you still
should be able to continue with the workaround.

Jürgen

> 
> Daniel
> 
> [1] http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#toc3
> 
> 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[racoon]

I have a document that works fine in 2.2 but generates an error in 2.3

"I found no \citation commands---while reading file ..."

It uses Biblatex according to [1]. I know that native support for 
Biblatex has been introduced in 2.3. So will I have to change my 
documents where I used [1] somehow?


Daniel

[1] http://wiki.lyx.org/BibTeX/Biblatex#toc3

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 08/09/2017 à 04:20, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

dbg info will be output to the terminal. You can redirect that to a file
if you want.


But could also keep a copy in the user directory IMO.

JMarc

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Mittwoch, den 06.09.2017, 15:03 +0200 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
> 2017-09-06 13:20 GMT+02:00 Sergio Celani :
> > Hi
> > 
> > With windows 10 (spanish) there exists a problem with the screen
> > fonts. In Tools ->Preferences -> the Default zoom 100 %, I have
> > changed to a larger value, for example 200%, and nothing happens.
> > 
> 
> This is due to an interface change that is currently discussed [1]

... and fixed now.

Jürgen

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Guenter Milde]

On 2017-09-06, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 09/06/2017 02:08 AM, Anders Ekberg wrote:

>> Tested briefly on Mac latest OS and fresh TeX installation. Only
>> problem was that the welcome document complains about unknown image
>> format (svgz?) If that is ignored the document compiles fine except
>> for that image, but it should preferably be fixed.

> I'm pretty sure this got reported earlier and was fixed recently.

Reported: yes, fixed: ???

Workaround: install Inkscape and run Tools>Reconfigure.

Problem: when using rsvg (or an rsvg based application??) as SVG->PDF
converter, the pdflatex output freezes the Mac PDF previewer if several,
originally SVG, graphics are on one output page. 
(The adventurous may try with the LyX UserGuide)

Günter

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 12:46:58PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 07:25 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding 2.3.0beta1.
> > I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be
> > considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that
> > not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been many
> > bug reports.
> >
> > If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g. "yes
> > I briefly tested and didn't find any issues".
> 
> Hi, Scott,
> 
> I've been using master extensively over the last couple months, and
> other than bugs I've reported I've had no problems at all. I actually
> started doing it because I actually needed some of the new features,
> e.g., biblatex support, some of the changes to the citation dialog,
> inverted branches.

Good to know. I have also been using master and have not found problems.

> > If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files.
> 
> Yes, we should all do that, but just in case
> 
> If any file from an earlier version of LyX is opened *and saved* with
> any version of 2.3.0, then the original file will automatically be
> backed up. The backup file will be found in the backup directory, if one
> is set under Tools> Preferences> Paths, or else in the same folder as
> the original file, if no backup directory is set. The filename of the
> backup file will be:
> ORIGNAME-lyxformat-NUM.lyx~
> where NUM is the LyX format number of the original file. In the case of
> 2.2.x file, this will be 508, but in the case of older files it will be
> different.
> 
> Scott, it might actually be a good idea to include this information in
> the 2.3.0-ish announcements. People often ask what these files are, and
> it's obviously good for people to konw they exist.

Good idea. Done for master at ee4e5c7b and for 2.3.x at 177331a0.

Scott

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:08:03AM +0200, Anders Ekberg wrote:
> Tested briefly on Mac latest OS and fresh TeX installation. Only problem was 
> that the welcome document complains about unknown image format (svgz?)
> If that is ignored the document compiles fine except for that image, but it 
> should preferably be fixed.

Thanks, Anders. I think this has been discussed but I'm not sure what
the current status is.

Scott

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Wolfgang Engelmann wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 06.09.2017 um 01:25 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> > I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding 2.3.0beta1.
> > I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be
> > considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that
> > not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been many
> > bug reports.
> > 
> > If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g. "yes
> > I briefly tested and didn't find any issues".
> > 
> > If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files.
> > 
> > One useful way to test is to compile your current .lyx files. If you get
> > a LaTeX error where with a previous .lyx file you did not, then that
> > could be a bug.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Scott
> I use lyx-2.3.1beta-1 under Debian Jessie. I had no problems with it so far.
> I was advised to start it with src/lyx -dbg info, which I do in this way
> ~/lyx-2.3.1beta-1$ src/lyx -dbg info
> Does it mean, that in case of a problem the infos would be written into the
> file info and that this file will be in the folder ~/lyx-2.3.1beta-1? So far
> there was no such file created.
> Wolfgang
> 

dbg info will be output to the terminal. You can redirect that to a file
if you want.

Scott

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Richard Heck]

On 09/05/2017 07:25 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding 2.3.0beta1.
> I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be
> considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that
> not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been many
> bug reports.
>
> If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g. "yes
> I briefly tested and didn't find any issues".

Hi, Scott,

I've been using master extensively over the last couple months, and
other than bugs I've reported I've had no problems at all. I actually
started doing it because I actually needed some of the new features,
e.g., biblatex support, some of the changes to the citation dialog,
inverted branches.

> If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files.

Yes, we should all do that, but just in case

If any file from an earlier version of LyX is opened *and saved* with
any version of 2.3.0, then the original file will automatically be
backed up. The backup file will be found in the backup directory, if one
is set under Tools> Preferences> Paths, or else in the same folder as
the original file, if no backup directory is set. The filename of the
backup file will be:
ORIGNAME-lyxformat-NUM.lyx~
where NUM is the LyX format number of the original file. In the case of
2.2.x file, this will be 508, but in the case of older files it will be
different.

Scott, it might actually be a good idea to include this information in
the 2.3.0-ish announcements. People often ask what these files are, and
it's obviously good for people to konw they exist.

Richard




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Richard Heck]

On 09/06/2017 02:08 AM, Anders Ekberg wrote:
> Tested briefly on Mac latest OS and fresh TeX installation. Only problem was 
> that the welcome document complains about unknown image format (svgz?)
> If that is ignored the document compiles fine except for that image, but it 
> should preferably be fixed.

I'm pretty sure this got reported earlier and was fixed recently.

Richard


>> 6 sep. 2017 kl. 01:25 skrev Scott Kostyshak :
>>
>> I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding 2.3.0beta1.
>> I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be
>> considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that
>> not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been many
>> bug reports.
>>
>> If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g. "yes
>> I briefly tested and didn't find any issues".
>>
>> If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files.
>>
>> One useful way to test is to compile your current .lyx files. If you get
>> a LaTeX error where with a previous .lyx file you did not, then that
>> could be a bug.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Scott

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Richard Heck]

On 09/05/2017 10:34 PM, Carlos Knauer wrote:
> Is there a version for Windows ? I am using version 2.2.3 and it works
> very well.

Yes, Windows binaries can be downloaded from
ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/devel/lyx-2.3/lyx-2.3.0beta1/
The one you want is the exe file.

Please note, as Scott said, that this is intended for testing. I've been
using it myself for actual work, but if you're not prepared to run into
difficulties, don't use it for that.

Richard

> Carlos, from Brasil
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Scott Kostyshak  > wrote:
>
> I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding
> 2.3.0beta1.
> I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be
> considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that
> not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been
> many
> bug reports.
>
> If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g.
> "yes
> I briefly tested and didn't find any issues".
>
> If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files.
>
> One useful way to test is to compile your current .lyx files. If
> you get
> a LaTeX error where with a previous .lyx file you did not, then that
> could be a bug.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott
>
>

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

2017-09-06 13:20 GMT+02:00 Sergio Celani :

> Hi
>
> With windows 10 (spanish) there exists a problem with the screen fonts. In
> Tools ->Preferences -> the Default zoom 100 %, I have changed to a larger
> value, for example 200%, and nothing happens.
>

This is due to an interface change that is currently discussed [1].
Meanwhile, you can change the zoom via - or -<+>/<->

Jürgen

[1] See http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10455



>
>
> Sergio, from Argentina
>
> Bye
>

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Wolfgang Engelmann]

Am 06.09.2017 um 01:25 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:

I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding 2.3.0beta1.
I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be
considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that
not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been many
bug reports.

If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g. "yes
I briefly tested and didn't find any issues".

If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files.

One useful way to test is to compile your current .lyx files. If you get
a LaTeX error where with a previous .lyx file you did not, then that
could be a bug.

Thanks,

Scott
I use lyx-2.3.1beta-1 under Debian Jessie. I had no problems with it so 
far. I was advised to start it with src/lyx -dbg info, which I do in 
this way

~/lyx-2.3.1beta-1$ src/lyx -dbg info
Does it mean, that in case of a problem the infos would be written into 
the file info and that this file will be in the folder 
~/lyx-2.3.1beta-1? So far there was no such file created.

Wolfgang

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Andrew Parsloe]

On 6/09/2017 11:25 a.m., Scott Kostyshak wrote:

I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding 2.3.0beta1.
I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be
considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that
not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been many
bug reports.

If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g. "yes
I briefly tested and didn't find any issues".

If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files.

One useful way to test is to compile your current .lyx files. If you get
a LaTeX error where with a previous .lyx file you did not, then that
could be a bug.

Thanks,

Scott

My documents are compiling without problem with beta1. However, I 
haven't been using LyX intensively just at the moment.


Andrew

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Anders Ekberg]

Tested briefly on Mac latest OS and fresh TeX installation. Only problem was 
that the welcome document complains about unknown image format (svgz?)
If that is ignored the document compiles fine except for that image, but it 
should preferably be fixed.

Anders

> 6 sep. 2017 kl. 01:25 skrev Scott Kostyshak :
> 
> I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding 2.3.0beta1.
> I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be
> considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that
> not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been many
> bug reports.
> 
> If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g. "yes
> I briefly tested and didn't find any issues".
> 
> If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files.
> 
> One useful way to test is to compile your current .lyx files. If you get
> a LaTeX error where with a previous .lyx file you did not, then that
> could be a bug.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott

Re: Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Carlos Knauer]

Is there a version for Windows ? I am using version 2.2.3 and it works very
well.
Carlos, from Brasil


On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Scott Kostyshak  wrote:

> I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding 2.3.0beta1.
> I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be
> considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that
> not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been many
> bug reports.
>
> If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g. "yes
> I briefly tested and didn't find any issues".
>
> If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files.
>
> One useful way to test is to compile your current .lyx files. If you get
> a LaTeX error where with a previous .lyx file you did not, then that
> could be a bug.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott
>

Have you tested 2.3.0beta1?

[Scott Kostyshak]

I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding 2.3.0beta1.
I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be
considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that
not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been many
bug reports.

If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g. "yes
I briefly tested and didn't find any issues".

If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files.

One useful way to test is to compile your current .lyx files. If you get
a LaTeX error where with a previous .lyx file you did not, then that
could be a bug.

Thanks,

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature