Re: --with-frontend

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:31:09AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | configure: error: Please select a frontend using --with-frontend | | Can we remove this now please? I am not sure that we should. Why? You'd like to maintain the pretence that we can ever support more than one

[PATCH] fix Qt4 discovery

Index: config/qt4.m4 === --- config/qt4.m4 (revision 15502) +++ config/qt4.m4 (working copy) @@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ SAVE_LIBS=$LIBS LIBS=$LIBS $1 AC_TRY_LINK([ - #include qglobal.h - #include

Re: --with-frontend

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:40:16AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Lars John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | configure: error: Lars Please select a frontend using --with-frontend Lars | Lars | Can we remove this now please? Lars I am not sure that we should. If I got John's point

Re: Conclusions

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:52:01AM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote: I hope that the focus will remain. Without someone leading the way and telling where the goal is, LyX will wander around like a zombie and get more and more broken, just like it has for the last months. I believe you mean

Re: --with-frontend

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 03:36:18PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote: As for getting rid of --with-frontend, I am squarely against that. Sure, by all means make qt4 the default. It is not about keeping up the pretence of multiple front-ends; rather, it is about keeping an easy capability for

Re: LyX and Fedora 4

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 06:24:19PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: Sooner or later I think it will appear on the Software Companion CD. You can also easily build it from source. The point is that currently Qt4 is like crap with respect to Qt3 on Solaris. At least with 4.1.4, you don't have

Re: Random notes

On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 12:07:13AM +0100, José Matos wrote: fuzzy when written. (For a bitter exchange see today's thread about RPM on Fedora Extras, I am a Fedora Maintainer that is why I follow this case, as an example of something that should never happen on LyX). Bitter? You ought to

LyX and Fedora 4

Transaction Check Error: file /usr/bin/qm2ts from install of qt4-devel-4.1.4-11.fc4.2 conflicts with file from package qt-devel-3.3.4-15.5 I hope this isn't indicative of how difficult Qt4 is going to be. At least it seems that Solaris out of the picture now. john

Re: LyX and Fedora 4

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:23:38AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | Transaction Check Error: file /usr/bin/qm2ts from install of > qt4-devel-4.1.4-11.fc4.2 conflicts with file from package qt-devel-3.3.4-15.5 > > Seems stragne qt4 does not even seem to have a qm2ts. I just had to

--with-frontend

configure: error: "Please select a frontend using --with-frontend" Can we remove this now please? john

Re: --with-frontend

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 10:28:08AM +0100, John Levon wrote: > configure: error: "Please select a frontend using --with-frontend" And the config needs fixing to just work on Fedora 4. It can't find qt4 at all. john

Re: --with-frontend

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:31:09AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | configure: error: "Please select a frontend using --with-frontend" > | > | Can we remove this now please? > > I am not sure that we should. Why? You'd like to maintain the pretence that we can ever support more than one

[PATCH] fix Qt4 discovery

Index: config/qt4.m4 === --- config/qt4.m4 (revision 15502) +++ config/qt4.m4 (working copy) @@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ SAVE_LIBS="$LIBS" LIBS="$LIBS $1" AC_TRY_LINK([ - #include - #include +

Re: --with-frontend

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:40:16AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Lars> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | configure: error: > Lars> "Please select a frontend using --with-frontend" > Lars> | > Lars> | Can we remove this now please? > >

Re: Conclusions

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:52:01AM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote: > I hope that the focus will remain. Without someone leading the way and > telling where the goal is, LyX will wander around like a zombie and get > more and more broken, just like it has for the last months. I believe you

Re: --with-frontend

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 03:36:18PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote: > As for getting rid of --with-frontend, I am squarely against that. Sure, > by all means make qt4 the default. It is not about keeping up the > pretence of multiple front-ends; rather, it is about keeping an easy > capability for

Re: LyX and Fedora 4

On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 06:24:19PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > Sooner or later I think it will appear on the Software Companion CD. > You can also easily build it from source. The point is that currently Qt4 > is like crap with respect to Qt3 on Solaris. At least with 4.1.4, you > don't

Re: Random notes

On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 12:07:13AM +0100, José Matos wrote: > fuzzy when written. (For a bitter exchange see today's thread about RPM on > Fedora Extras, I am a Fedora Maintainer that is why I follow this case, as an > example of something that should never happen on LyX). Bitter? You ought to

Re: [Preview-PATCH] Save toolbar status

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 05:59:53PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Joost Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: I think we will get rid of the right click menu in favour of a View- Toolbars dialog. There, people should also set math/table. Why a dialog? Joost Don't get rid of it. Keep both like

Re: [Preview-PATCH] Save toolbar status

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 06:25:24PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: Why a dialog? To add, remove and move actions. To set the position. And because I don't see a good solution to switch between on, off, math, table in a menu. Then we need both, I think, with the dialog under

Re: [Preview-PATCH] Save toolbar status

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 05:59:53PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Joost> Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: > >> I think we will get rid of the right click menu in favour of a > View-> Toolbars dialog. There, people should also set math/table. Why a dialog? > Joost> Don't get rid of it. Keep

Re: [Preview-PATCH] Save toolbar status

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 06:25:24PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: > > Why a dialog? > > To add, remove and move actions. To set the position. > And because I don't see a good solution to switch between "on, off, math, > table" in a menu. Then we need both, I think, with the dialog under

Re: [PATCH] Painter::text() returns drawn text width()

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 06:55:35PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: As the title says. I've been testing this patch for some days and I didn't see any side effect. The contrary would be surprising as the changes are pretty simple. Is font metrics any faster these days? There's an extra

Re: Please include LyXWinInstaller's toolbar in the official LyX Windows installer

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:44:41PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote: Currently the very useful math and table toolbars are still off by default, which is not a good thing in my opinion. Too many things are hidden for the normal end-user. The plan always was to introduce View-Toolbars ala other

Re: [PATCH] Painter::text() returns drawn text width()

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 06:55:35PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > As the title says. I've been testing this patch for some days and I > didn't see any side effect. The contrary would be surprising as the > changes are pretty simple. Is font metrics any faster these days? There's an extra

Re: Please include LyXWinInstaller's toolbar in the official LyX Windows installer

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:44:41PM +0200, Joost Verburg wrote: > Currently the very useful math and table toolbars are still off by > default, which is not a good thing in my opinion. Too many things are > hidden for the normal end-user. The plan always was to introduce View->Toolbars ala

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:12:22PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: But still - they do understand that this letter to mom have this name, that report have that name, and so on. This is what you need to use save. No, Helge, naming a document is entirely different to what File-Save presents.

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: Perhaps store is a better word than save, but I can't see how you can claim that the operation itself isn't useful. How else would you want to preserve a document for the future? Why on earth would the computer not do this for

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 04:14:46PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: Well, it can be automatic of course. Still, there are times when it is useful *not* to save. The cat walked across my keyboard, but it doesn't matter for I wasn't going to save this. Well, we could remove save and keep revert,

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:12:22PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > But still - they do understand that this letter to mom have this name, > that report have that name, and so on. This is what you need to use > "save". No, Helge, naming a document is entirely different to what File->Save

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > Perhaps "store" is a better word than "save", but I can't > see how you can claim that the operation itself isn't useful. > How else would you want to preserve a document for the future? Why on earth would the computer not do this

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 04:14:46PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > Well, it can be automatic of course. Still, there are times when > it is useful *not* to save. The cat walked across my keyboard, > but it doesn't matter for I wasn't going to save this. > Well, we could remove "save" and keep

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 03:37:30PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: John Levon wrote: On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:11:31PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: It isn't a model - it is how this computer stuff actually happen on a low level. Precisely the problem. Well, the keep it simple

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 03:37:30PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > John Levon wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:11:31PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > > > > > >>It isn't a model - it is how this computer stuff actually happen on a > >>low level

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:11:31PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: It isn't a model - it is how this computer stuff actually happen on a low level. Precisely the problem. Saving is *often* unnecessary because the app should do that when you close it anyway. But sometimes I want to save

Re: Qt3 Discussion

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:09:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Now, the consensus was there for xforms so, no, I don't think it would have survived unicode. If consensus isn't there, isn't a discussion (lengthy or not) exactly the right thing? john

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:32:44AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: Please tell - what is the problem with File-Save? Logically, saving is an operation on a file. What do you want instead, document-save? Or something completely different? I can only point you to About Face, a pretty excellent

Re: [PATCH] Remove pspell and ispell support

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 04:38:20PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: | You've just described my very plan ;-). I just thought it was obvious | so I didn't care to write it so explicitly. The problem is just that | Lars won't allow step 1. Very right. If the bus thing happens after step 1, we

Re: Qt3 Discussion

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:09:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Now, the consensus was there for xforms so, no, I don't think it would > have survived unicode. If consensus isn't there, isn't a discussion (lengthy or not) exactly the right thing? john

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:32:44AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > Please tell - what is the problem with File->Save? Logically, > saving is an operation on a file. What do you want instead, > document->save? Or something completely different? I can only point you to "About Face", a pretty

Re: [PATCH] Remove pspell and ispell support

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 04:38:20PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > >| You've just described my very plan ;-). I just thought it was obvious > >| so I didn't care to write it so explicitly. The problem is just that > >| Lars won't allow step 1. > > > >Very right. If the bus thing happens after

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:11:31PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > It isn't a model - it is how this computer stuff actually happen on a > low level. Precisely the problem. > Saving is *often* unnecessary because the app should do that > when you close it anyway. But sometimes I want to save

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: what do you think about the patch below? The idea is to have a submenu for character styles that combines layout-specific char styles, bold/emphasize/noun style, and the font dialog. The layout-specific char styles have been

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 03:36:10PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: Really? I didn't notice that. Anyway, if you think that emphasize and noun should be in the menus additionally to the toolbars and the dialog (I find it superfluous), it is probably the best to put them in a char style

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: John Levon wrote: it's at least arguable that capitalisation is a reasonable Text Style operation. In English perhaps. At least in German, it's first and foremost a morphosyntactical (i.e. grammatical) marker, and I

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 01:51:36PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: I think the only one that makes sense is the kbd version, since the idea is to do faster something that could be done by hand. Yes, that's fine by me. regards john

Re: [PATCH] Remove pspell and ispell support

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 03:58:02PM +, Angus Leeming wrote: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lars Then our spellcheck abstraction is wrong. Yes :) Being fair to John, he couldn't make sense of the original Controller stuff when he wrote ControlSpellchecker. Being fair

Re: Qt3 Discussion

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:10:08PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: Decide on your own what that means for Qt3... One small note: if qt3 dies (and the development cost does seem quite onerous), then the first 1.5.0 release should have clear pointers and instructions on how to get qt4 for common

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:25:24PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: Sorry but I have to disagree strongly. Why on earth do we have cut paste in the edit menu? Because it is so efficient to use the menu? Definitely not! Because every word processor has it? Ugh, didn't John teach us for years

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:55:36PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: BTW: I changed Text Style into Character Style, because Martin calls them character styles. The terms shows up in the layout files and it should This is perhaps unfortunate. What do other people think? regards john

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > what do you think about the patch below? The idea is to have a submenu > for character styles that combines layout-specific char styles, > bold/emphasize/noun style, and the font dialog. The layout-specific char > styles have been

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 03:36:10PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: > Really? I didn't notice that. Anyway, if you think that emphasize and noun > should be in the menus additionally to the toolbars and the dialog (I find it > superfluous), it is probably the best to put them in a char style

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote: > John Levon wrote: > > it's at least > > arguable that capitalisation is a reasonable "Text Style" operation. > > In English perhaps. At least in German, it's first and foremost a > m

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 01:51:36PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > I think the only one that makes sense is the kbd version, since the > idea is to do faster something that could be done by hand. Yes, that's fine by me. regards john

Re: [PATCH] Remove pspell and ispell support

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 03:58:02PM +, Angus Leeming wrote: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Lars> Then our spellcheck abstraction is wrong. > > Yes :) > > Being fair to John, he couldn't make sense of the original Controller stuff > when he wrote ControlSpellchecker.

Re: Qt3 Discussion

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:10:08PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > Decide on your own what that means for Qt3... One small note: if qt3 dies (and the development cost does seem quite onerous), then the first 1.5.0 release should have clear pointers and instructions on how to get qt4 for common

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:25:24PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > Sorry but I have to disagree strongly. Why on earth do we have "cut" & > "paste" in the "edit" menu? Because it is so efficient to use the menu? > Definitely not! Because every word processor has it? Ugh, didn't John > teach us

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:55:36PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > BTW: I changed "Text Style" into "Character Style", because Martin calls > them character styles. The terms shows up in the layout files and it should This is perhaps unfortunate. What do other people think? regards john

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:07:17PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: John Levon schrieb: What would be REALLY cool is some actual UI testing in a proper lab infrastructure. But slightly cool would be something that collected real-life data on menu use, and allowed us to collect it (modulo privacy

Re: Active table and math toolbar

On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 08:54:38PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: Why don't we activate the toolbars for now (and for 1.4.3)? The activation is not a showstopper in case someone wants to optimize the look feel later. Let's activate it for 1.5.0svn and see what happens, but not 1.4... regards

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:07:17PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > John Levon schrieb: > >What would be REALLY cool is some actual UI testing in a proper lab > >infrastructure. But slightly cool would be something that collected > >real-life data on menu use, and allowed us

Re: Active table and math toolbar

On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 08:54:38PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > Why don't we activate the toolbars for now (and for 1.4.3)? The > activation is not a showstopper in case someone wants to optimize the > look & feel later. Let's activate it for 1.5.0svn and see what happens, but not 1.4...

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:17:51PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: Nevertheless, at some point in time, we should ask the LyX users (not the developers) what they would like to see as the default. Personally, I think that the traditional Windows/Word/OOo user prefers the classic look feel but

Re: Active table and math toolbar

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:01:41PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: I think this patch (or a similar one) has been discussed already. Should I commit it? This is a really difficult one to decide. I can see this being enormously irritating default behaviour for some people, and we don't yet have a

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:17:51PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > Nevertheless, at some point in time, we should ask the LyX users (not > the developers) what they would like to see as the default. Personally, > I think that the traditional Windows/Word/OOo user prefers the classic > look & feel

Re: Active table and math toolbar

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:01:41PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > I think this patch (or a similar one) has been discussed already. Should > I commit it? This is a really difficult one to decide. I can see this being enormously irritating default behaviour for some people, and we don't yet have a

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:33:34PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb: There is a reason for example why 'Toggle read only' was not there. This is a very specialized lfun which was added at someone's request; for the casual user, it will cause more puzzlement than

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:33:34PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb: > >There is a reason for example why 'Toggle read only' was not there. > >This is a very specialized lfun which was added at someone's request; > >for the casual user, it will cause more puzzlement than

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:02:26PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: John Levon schrieb: The exact same comments I've had every single time you've tried to bring this up. And not once have you actually gone through the design explanations I gave and argued your case. It's just they have it, so

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:02:26PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > John Levon schrieb: > >The exact same comments I've had every single time you've tried to bring > >this up. And not once have you actually gone through the design > >explanations I gave and argued your case.

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 12:30:28AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: Hello, cid:part1.01020508.07000601@teststep.org I think we should re-introduce the Layout menu which was dropped in the 1.4.X series. The main reason is that every word processor (even UltraEdit!) has such a menu. The

Re: [PATCH] Re-introduce layout menu

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 12:30:28AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > Hello, > > I think we should re-introduce the "Layout" menu which was dropped in > the 1.4.X series. The main reason is that every word processor (even > UltraEdit!) has such a menu. The

Re: LyX development, the way forward (IMHO)

On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 10:45:11AM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote: The main risks are: - There will be a known problem which the developer does not have time to fix until a week or two later. Then something happens, and it never gets done This is still a risk even with review. Review

Re: LyX development, the way forward (IMHO)

On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 01:39:32PM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote: John Levon wrote: No review is done This is better than code does not get committed, given that the developer is competent. There really is no developer I've ever met who doesn't need review, and I work with some very

Re: LyX development, the way forward (IMHO)

On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 10:45:11AM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote: > The main risks are: > > - There will be a known problem which the developer does not have time > to fix until a week or two later. Then something happens, and it never > gets done This is still a risk even with review.

Re: LyX development, the way forward (IMHO)

On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 01:39:32PM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote: > John Levon wrote: > > No review is done > > This is better than code does not get committed, given that the > developer is competent. There really is no developer I've ever met who doesn't need review, an

Re: [PATCH] CT - Toolbar

On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 06:13:58PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: I would like to add a tool bar for tracking changes (in the personal branch at first). Do you agree with the attached patch? Looks OK. I wonder if it could be made to pop up automatically if loading a document with changes to

Re: [PATCH] CT - Toolbar

On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 06:13:58PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > I would like to add a tool bar for tracking changes (in the personal branch > at first). Do you agree with the attached patch? Looks OK. I wonder if it could be made to pop up automatically if loading a document with changes to

Re: [PATCH] CT 8

On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 12:03:10AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: The patch of the day: Looks fine john

Re: [PATCH] CT 8

On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 12:03:10AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > The patch of the day: Looks fine john

Re: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:41:10AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Abdel asked me to send small patches regularly rather than one big patch. However, if you change internal data structures, it is impossible to proceed without breaking things in the middle of the migration process. I

Re: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:01:22PM +0100, John Levon wrote: I understand that sometimes that's difficult to do, and it's fair enough. But it's very important that the trunk stay working. What if someone else needs to make a related change, and they are completely blocked behind your work

Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:28:58PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: I will create a branch now. I will send small patches to the mailing list and ask you for comments on the overall approach. However, I won't care about a broken CT until it is time to merge with the trunk. Sounds great. john

Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 09:19:17PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's *known* broken? Because maintaining branches is an extra effort that eats resources. Even in

Re: [PATCH] CT, part 4

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:27:17PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: case LFUN_CHANGE_REJECT: // what about these two case LFUN_ALL_CHANGES_ACCEPT: case LFUN_ALL_CHANGES_REJECT: - flag.enabled(buffer_ buffer_-params().tracking_changes); +

Re: [PATCH] CT, part 4

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:52:27PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: case LFUN_CHANGE_REJECT: // what about these two case LFUN_ALL_CHANGES_ACCEPT: case LFUN_ALL_CHANGES_REJECT: - flag.enabled(buffer_ buffer_-params().tracking_changes); + flag.enabled(buffer_);

Re: [PATCH] CT, part 4

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:06:58PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: These should be disabled if there's nothing /to/ reject or accept. If that's too hard or slow to do then OK, but we should try. I will send you a screenshot tomorrow. Right now, my tree is broken. Actually, my plans are to

Re: [PATCH] CT 5

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:01:46AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: just too many things happended implicitly in the CT code. Seems OK john

Re: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:41:10AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Abdel asked me to send small patches regularly rather than one big > patch. However, if you change internal data structures, it is > impossible to proceed without breaking things in the middle of the > migration process. I

Re: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:01:22PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > I understand that sometimes that's difficult to do, and it's fair > enough. But it's very important that the trunk stay working. What if > someone else needs to make a related change, and they are completely > blocked behi

Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:28:58PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > I will create a branch now. I will send small patches to the mailing > list and ask you for comments on the overall approach. However, I won't > care about a broken CT until it is time to merge with the trunk. Sounds great. john

Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 09:19:17PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases > > > > Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's > > *known* broken? > > Because maintaining branches is an extra effort that eats

Re: [PATCH] CT, part 4

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:27:17PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > case LFUN_CHANGE_REJECT: // what about these two > case LFUN_ALL_CHANGES_ACCEPT: > case LFUN_ALL_CHANGES_REJECT: > - flag.enabled(buffer_ && buffer_->params().tracking_changes); > +

Re: [PATCH] CT, part 4

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:52:27PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > >>case LFUN_CHANGE_REJECT: // what about these two > >>case LFUN_ALL_CHANGES_ACCEPT: > >>case LFUN_ALL_CHANGES_REJECT: > >>- flag.enabled(buffer_ && buffer_->params().tracking_changes); > >>+

Re: [PATCH] CT, part 4

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:06:58PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > >These should be disabled if there's nothing /to/ reject or accept. If > >that's too hard or slow to do then OK, but we should try. > > > I will send you a screenshot tomorrow. Right now, my tree is broken. > Actually, my plans are

Re: [PATCH] CT 5

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:01:46AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > just too many things happended implicitly in the CT code. Seems OK john

Re: r13807 - in /lyx-devel/trunk: SConstruct boost/libs/SCons...

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 08:15:27AM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: The only serious patch I need to do with qt4.py is actually related to the .C extension we use. It is not considered as a C++ extension there. Also, under windows, since windows is not case sensitive, the .C files are considered as .c

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:19:29PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: scons: Configure: Checking for main() in C library nsl... What is this nsl library? It's networking functions on certain UNIX types like Solaris. regards john

Re: Debut of the scons-based build system for lyx

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:36:57PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Andre Poenitz a écrit : Last time the Windows developers wanted to have .vcproj files. They got them. Now Windows developers want scons files. So what tomorrow? A cheese cake. Let them eat cake! I don't think

Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's *known* broken? regards john

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >