Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
John McCabe-Dansted wrote: the most problematic cases of our copypaste typically happen when middle button is used for getting, or puting stuff from/into another applications and when more lyx instances are used. dunno whether the patch affects these use cases... its very fragile stuff and

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
kuem...@lyx.org wrote: Author: kuemmel Date: Sun Oct 17 12:44:53 2010 New Revision: 35662 URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/35662 Log: Use DispatchResult also in GuiView::dispatchVC to handle messages. Make it possible to suppress messages stored in DispatchResult objects. BUG: 6417

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Pavel Sanda wrote: Richard Heck wrote: I've lost track, I'm afraid, of which patch set is which. Here's what I've got. i have flagged this message from JMarc in case it makes the things more clear: I would like to have the newlineisparbreak part, which is important for sweave support

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Uwe Stöhr
i tried to be transparent and listed exactly 4 bugs which are in my opinion before-beta stuff So I missed this post from you but cannot find it in the archives. What are these 4 bugs? thanks and regards Uwe

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Uwe Stöhr wrote: i tried to be transparent and listed exactly 4 bugs which are in my opinion before-beta stuff So I missed this post from you but cannot find it in the archives. What are these 4 bugs? the first point of this thread

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Richard Heck
On 10/17/2010 12:52 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: Richard Heck wrote: I've lost track, I'm afraid, of which patch set is which. Here's what I've got. i have flagged this message from JMarc in case it makes the things more clear: I would like to have the

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Richard Heck wrote: Richard, was the last movement in lyx2lyx fixing this or we wait for something else? No, that was JMarc's other request. I'll have a look early next week at this bit. thanks, give me hint once its finished ;) pavel

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Uwe Stöhr
to sum it up, beta is doable at the end of October or on the very beginning of November - now for real. Nice! But to assure that we achieve this can you close trunk for new features soon? Trunk should only be open for bugfixes and documentation. regards Uwe

Re: r35575 - lyx-devel/trunk/src

2010-10-17 Thread Stephan Witt
Am 15.10.2010 um 21:28 schrieb Stephan Witt: Am 15.10.2010 um 18:00 schrieb Pavel Sanda: Pavel Sanda wrote: this is already bug #chrrm (bugzilla is down). #6396 Ok, thanks. An attempt to attack it (together with repoUpdate implementation) is attached... I tried to make the

[PATCH] updateMacros() does not descend into tables

2010-10-17 Thread Richard Heck
Can someone who actually understands that stuff have a look at the attached and tell me if it is OK? Thanks, Richard Index: src/Buffer.cpp === --- src/Buffer.cpp (revision 35669) +++ src/Buffer.cpp (working copy) @@

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Vincent van Ravesteijn
Op 17-10-2010 20:31, Uwe Stöhr schreef: to sum it up, beta is doable at the end of October or on the very beginning of November - now for real. Nice! But to assure that we achieve this can you close trunk for new features soon? Trunk should only be open for bugfixes and documentation.

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Richard Heck
On 10/17/2010 06:44 AM, kuem...@lyx.org wrote: Author: kuemmel Date: Sun Oct 17 12:44:53 2010 New Revision: 35662 URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/35662 Log: Use DispatchResult also in GuiView::dispatchVC to handle messages. Make it possible to suppress messages stored in DispatchResult

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Uwe Stöhr wrote: Nice! But to assure that we achieve this can you close trunk for new features soon? Trunk should only be open for bugfixes and documentation. basically it is releasing beta which makes closure for new features. its not such big deal if there are bugs in beta1, everybody will

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Peter Kümmel
Am Sonntag, den 17.10.2010, 18:32 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda: kuem...@lyx.org wrote: Author: kuemmel Date: Sun Oct 17 12:44:53 2010 New Revision: 35662 URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/35662 Log: Use DispatchResult also in GuiView::dispatchVC to handle messages. Make it

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Peter Kümmel wrote: #412: Opening the box of QProcess short before a release? I don't know if this is a good idea. We had so much problems when introducing unblocked texing, so I think we should postpone it. i thought that once we have it for viewing, it might be piece of cake to add

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Peter Kümmel
Am Sonntag, den 17.10.2010, 22:19 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda: Peter Kümmel wrote: #412: Opening the box of QProcess short before a release? I don't know if this is a good idea. We had so much problems when introducing unblocked texing, so I think we should postpone it. i thought that

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Uwe Stöhr
Am 17.10.2010 21:57, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: Why would closing trunk for new features _assure_ getting a beta out ? This prevents us from introducing new bugs and regressions. (An example of a newly introduced regression is for example http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/6943) At some

Re: r35617 - lyx-devel/trunk

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
sa...@lyx.org wrote: Author: sanda Date: Tue Oct 12 22:08:58 2010 New Revision: 35617 URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/35617 Log: Tested autoconf 2.68 Modified: lyx-devel/trunk/autogen.sh Modified: lyx-devel/trunk/autogen.sh

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Richard Heck
On 10/17/2010 04:19 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Peter Kümmel wrote: #412: Opening the box of QProcess short before a release? I don't know if this is a good idea. We had so much problems when introducing unblocked texing, so I think we should postpone it. i thought that once we have it

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Richard Heck wrote: I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the problems must have lay mostly at (i). But (i) is the same both times. that was my naive view too, haven't seen the code. if its true we can try it, but this must go soon to have some testing time. pavel

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > > the most problematic cases of our copy typically happen when > > middle button is used for getting, or puting stuff from/into another > > applications and when more lyx instances are used. dunno whether > > the patch affects these use cases... its very fragile stuff

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
kuem...@lyx.org wrote: > Author: kuemmel > Date: Sun Oct 17 12:44:53 2010 > New Revision: 35662 > URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/35662 > > Log: > Use DispatchResult also in GuiView::dispatchVC to handle messages. > Make it possible to suppress messages stored in DispatchResult objects. >

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Pavel Sanda wrote: > Richard Heck wrote: > > I've lost track, I'm afraid, of which patch set is which. Here's what I've > > got. > > i have flagged this message from JMarc in case it makes the things more clear: > > >I would like to have the newlineisparbreak part, which is important for >

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Uwe Stöhr
> i tried to be transparent and listed exactly 4 bugs which are in my opinion > before-beta stuff So I missed this post from you but cannot find it in the archives. What are these 4 bugs? thanks and regards Uwe

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Uwe Stöhr wrote: > > i tried to be transparent and listed exactly 4 bugs which are in my > opinion > > before-beta stuff > > So I missed this post from you but cannot find it in the archives. What are > these 4 bugs? the first point of this thread

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Richard Heck
On 10/17/2010 12:52 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: Richard Heck wrote: I've lost track, I'm afraid, of which patch set is which. Here's what I've got. i have flagged this message from JMarc in case it makes the things more clear: I would like to have the

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Richard Heck wrote: >> Richard, was the last movement in lyx2lyx fixing this or we wait for >> something else? >> >> > No, that was JMarc's other request. I'll have a look early next week at > this bit. thanks, give me hint once its finished ;) pavel

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Uwe Stöhr
> to sum it up, beta is doable > at the end of October or on the very beginning of November - now for real. Nice! But to assure that we achieve this can you close trunk for new features soon? Trunk should only be open for bugfixes and documentation. regards Uwe

Re: r35575 - lyx-devel/trunk/src

2010-10-17 Thread Stephan Witt
Am 15.10.2010 um 21:28 schrieb Stephan Witt: > Am 15.10.2010 um 18:00 schrieb Pavel Sanda: > >> Pavel Sanda wrote: >>> this is already bug #chrrm (bugzilla is down). >> >> #6396 > > Ok, thanks. An attempt to attack it (together with repoUpdate implementation) is attached... I tried to make

[PATCH] updateMacros() does not descend into tables

2010-10-17 Thread Richard Heck
Can someone who actually understands that stuff have a look at the attached and tell me if it is OK? Thanks, Richard Index: src/Buffer.cpp === --- src/Buffer.cpp (revision 35669) +++ src/Buffer.cpp (working copy) @@

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Vincent van Ravesteijn
Op 17-10-2010 20:31, Uwe Stöhr schreef: > to sum it up, beta is doable > at the end of October or on the very beginning of November - now for real. Nice! But to assure that we achieve this can you close trunk for new features soon? Trunk should only be open for bugfixes and documentation.

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Richard Heck
On 10/17/2010 06:44 AM, kuem...@lyx.org wrote: Author: kuemmel Date: Sun Oct 17 12:44:53 2010 New Revision: 35662 URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/35662 Log: Use DispatchResult also in GuiView::dispatchVC to handle messages. Make it possible to suppress messages stored in DispatchResult

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Nice! But to assure that we achieve this can you close trunk for new > features soon? Trunk should only be open for bugfixes and documentation. basically it is releasing beta which makes closure for new features. its not such big deal if there are bugs in beta1, everybody will

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Peter Kümmel
Am Sonntag, den 17.10.2010, 18:32 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda: > kuem...@lyx.org wrote: > > Author: kuemmel > > Date: Sun Oct 17 12:44:53 2010 > > New Revision: 35662 > > URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/35662 > > > > Log: > > Use DispatchResult also in GuiView::dispatchVC to handle messages.

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Peter Kümmel wrote: > #412: Opening the box of QProcess short before a release? > I don't know if this is a good idea. We had so much problems > when introducing unblocked texing, so I think we should > postpone it. i thought that once we have it for viewing, it might be piece of cake to add

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Peter Kümmel
Am Sonntag, den 17.10.2010, 22:19 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda: > Peter Kümmel wrote: > > #412: Opening the box of QProcess short before a release? > > I don't know if this is a good idea. We had so much problems > > when introducing unblocked texing, so I think we should > > postpone it. > > i

Re: Some thoughts on further development process towards beta and RCs

2010-10-17 Thread Uwe Stöhr
Am 17.10.2010 21:57, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: Why would closing trunk for new features _assure_ getting a beta out ? This prevents us from introducing new bugs and regressions. (An example of a newly introduced regression is for example http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/6943) At some

Re: r35617 - lyx-devel/trunk

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
sa...@lyx.org wrote: > Author: sanda > Date: Tue Oct 12 22:08:58 2010 > New Revision: 35617 > URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/35617 > > Log: > Tested autoconf 2.68 > > Modified: >lyx-devel/trunk/autogen.sh > > Modified: lyx-devel/trunk/autogen.sh >

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Richard Heck
On 10/17/2010 04:19 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Peter Kümmel wrote: #412: Opening the box of QProcess short before a release? I don't know if this is a good idea. We had so much problems when introducing unblocked texing, so I think we should postpone it. i thought that once we have it

Re: r35662 - in lyx-devel/trunk/src: . frontends/qt4

2010-10-17 Thread Pavel Sanda
Richard Heck wrote: > I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the problems must have lay mostly > at (i). But (i) is the same both times. that was my naive view too, haven't seen the code. if its true we can try it, but this must go soon to have some testing time. pavel