Bo Peng wrote:
Here is the whole story:
1. we only provide export to 1.4.x and 1.3.x from 1.5.x.
2. Only 1.5.x can enter unrecognizable listings parameters.
3. If a user is using RC1, he can not read 1.5.x file, so the file has
to be exported to 1.4.x, in which listings will be converted
If this is the new path to follow then please be honest and announce to the
users that you don't care for file compatibility anymore.
OK, you and Jurgen win. I will add a lyx2lyx entry.
Another reason I did not add a lyx2lyx entry is that listings has to
be converted to ERT because there is no
Bo Peng wrote:
OK, you and Jurgen win. I will add a lyx2lyx entry.
Thanks!
Jürgen
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 17:24:41 Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Thanks!
Jürgen
+1
--
José Abílio
Bo Peng wrote:
> Here is the whole story:
>
> 1. we only provide export to 1.4.x and 1.3.x from 1.5.x.
> 2. Only 1.5.x can enter unrecognizable listings parameters.
> 3. If a user is using RC1, he can not read 1.5.x file, so the file has
> to be exported to 1.4.x, in which listings will be
If this is the new path to follow then please be honest and announce to the
users that you don't care for file compatibility anymore.
OK, you and Jurgen win. I will add a lyx2lyx entry.
Another reason I did not add a lyx2lyx entry is that listings has to
be converted to ERT because there is no
Bo Peng wrote:
> OK, you and Jurgen win. I will add a lyx2lyx entry.
Thanks!
Jürgen
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 17:24:41 Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> Jürgen
+1
--
José Abílio
On Monday 11 June 2007 07:53:56 Bo Peng wrote:
Hm, that's not exactly what I had in mind. But if you're too lazy and
José is fine with it, I can live with that.
If you want to support RC1, this is the only method. Because there is
no easy way (in lyx2lyx) to tell if a parameter string is
Since the support for the marker was there for a short time we can ignore
it, no?
I also think lyx2lyx for RC1 is not needed. Jose, can I commit a
version without lyx2lyx? I have added tooltips etc.
Bo
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 15:25:39 Bo Peng wrote:
I also think lyx2lyx for RC1 is not needed. Jose, can I commit a
version without lyx2lyx? I have added tooltips etc.
Bo
Yes.
--
José Abílio
Jose, can I commit a
version without lyx2lyx? I have added tooltips etc.
Bo
Yes.
Done.
Bo
Am Dienstag, 12. Juni 2007 18:31 schrieb José Matos:
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 15:25:39 Bo Peng wrote:
I also think lyx2lyx for RC1 is not needed. Jose, can I commit a
version without lyx2lyx? I have added tooltips etc.
Bo
Yes.
Then I don't understand why there is more than one format
Then I don't understand why there is more than one format change between
major releases. Fedora 7 ships beta2 AFAIK, other distros might ship rc1.
If not even a _Release Candidate_ is worth it to maintain compatibility,
then there is no need to care for any intermediate svn version.
Here is the
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 21:45:36 Bo Peng wrote:
Here is the whole story:
1. we only provide export to 1.4.x and 1.3.x from 1.5.x.
2. Only 1.5.x can enter unrecognizable listings parameters.
3. If a user is using RC1, he can not read 1.5.x file, so the file has
to be exported to 1.4.x, in
Now so that we are sure not to be discussing some theoretical possibility
(extremely rare in practice) do you have an example file made with current
svn that does not work with RC1? How does it fails?
RC1 is also available in Fedora updates-testing so I have it installed.
If you have both
On Monday 11 June 2007 07:53:56 Bo Peng wrote:
> > Hm, that's not exactly what I had in mind. But if you're too lazy and
> > José is fine with it, I can live with that.
>
> If you want to support RC1, this is the only method. Because there is
> no easy way (in lyx2lyx) to tell if a parameter
Since the support for the marker was there for a short time we can ignore
it, no?
I also think lyx2lyx for RC1 is not needed. Jose, can I commit a
version without lyx2lyx? I have added tooltips etc.
Bo
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 15:25:39 Bo Peng wrote:
> I also think lyx2lyx for RC1 is not needed. Jose, can I commit a
> version without lyx2lyx? I have added tooltips etc.
>
> Bo
Yes.
--
José Abílio
> Jose, can I commit a
> version without lyx2lyx? I have added tooltips etc.
>
> Bo
Yes.
Done.
Bo
Am Dienstag, 12. Juni 2007 18:31 schrieb José Matos:
> On Tuesday 12 June 2007 15:25:39 Bo Peng wrote:
> > I also think lyx2lyx for RC1 is not needed. Jose, can I commit a
> > version without lyx2lyx? I have added tooltips etc.
> >
> > Bo
>
> Yes.
Then I don't understand why there is more than
Then I don't understand why there is more than one format change between
major releases. Fedora 7 ships beta2 AFAIK, other distros might ship rc1.
If not even a _Release Candidate_ is worth it to maintain compatibility,
then there is no need to care for any intermediate svn version.
Here is the
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 21:45:36 Bo Peng wrote:
> Here is the whole story:
>
> 1. we only provide export to 1.4.x and 1.3.x from 1.5.x.
> 2. Only 1.5.x can enter unrecognizable listings parameters.
> 3. If a user is using RC1, he can not read 1.5.x file, so the file has
> to be exported to 1.4.x,
Now so that we are sure not to be discussing some theoretical possibility
(extremely rare in practice) do you have an example file made with current
svn that does not work with RC1? How does it fails?
RC1 is also available in Fedora updates-testing so I have it installed.
If you have both
I like the approach in general. Some comments:
- In the Listings dialog, the Bypass validation checkbox should go to
the Avanced tab. Furthermore, it lacks an accelerator and a tooltip (in all
three dialogs).
- toggling this checkbox doesn't have an immediate effect (in alle three
dialogs).
- In the Listings dialog, the Bypass validation checkbox should go to
the Avanced tab. Furthermore, it lacks an accelerator and a tooltip (in all
three dialogs).
Sorry, I know they are supposed to be easy, but I do not know qt well
enough to add accelerator and tooltips. I guess you can add
Bo Peng wrote:
- In the Listings dialog, the Bypass validation checkbox should go to
the Avanced tab. Furthermore, it lacks an accelerator and a tooltip (in
all three dialogs).
Sorry, I know they are supposed to be easy, but I do not know qt well
enough to add accelerator and tooltips. I
Bo Peng wrote:
I think we only need to support official releases, but if you insist,
I will do something with lyx2lyx.
Attached please find an updated patch with lyx2lyx support for RC1.
OK to apply?
if there is going to be a fileformat change afterall, then it would be
nice to have cline
Attached please find an updated patch with lyx2lyx support for RC1.
OK to apply?
if there is going to be a fileformat change afterall, then it would be
nice to have cline support...
Am I missing anything? I do not see any lyx2lyx part in your patch...
BTW, I have no opinion on whether or
Bo Peng wrote:
Attached please find an updated patch with lyx2lyx support for RC1.
OK to apply?
if there is going to be a fileformat change afterall, then it would be
nice to have cline support...
Am I missing anything? I do not see any lyx2lyx part in your patch...
sharp as a razor (as
I like the approach in general. Some comments:
- In the Listings dialog, the "Bypass validation" checkbox should go to
the "Avanced" tab. Furthermore, it lacks an accelerator and a tooltip (in all
three dialogs).
- toggling this checkbox doesn't have an immediate effect (in alle three
- In the Listings dialog, the "Bypass validation" checkbox should go to
the "Avanced" tab. Furthermore, it lacks an accelerator and a tooltip (in all
three dialogs).
Sorry, I know they are supposed to be easy, but I do not know qt well
enough to add accelerator and tooltips. I guess you can add
Bo Peng wrote:
> > - In the Listings dialog, the "Bypass validation" checkbox should go to
> > the "Avanced" tab. Furthermore, it lacks an accelerator and a tooltip (in
> > all three dialogs).
>
> Sorry, I know they are supposed to be easy, but I do not know qt well
> enough to add accelerator and
Bo Peng wrote:
I think we only need to support official releases, but if you insist,
I will do something with lyx2lyx.
Attached please find an updated patch with lyx2lyx support for RC1.
OK to apply?
if there is going to be a fileformat change afterall, then it would be
nice to have cline
> Attached please find an updated patch with lyx2lyx support for RC1.
>
> OK to apply?
if there is going to be a fileformat change afterall, then it would be
nice to have cline support...
Am I missing anything? I do not see any lyx2lyx part in your patch...
BTW, I have no opinion on whether
Bo Peng wrote:
> Attached please find an updated patch with lyx2lyx support for RC1.
>
> OK to apply?
if there is going to be a fileformat change afterall, then it would be
nice to have cline support...
Am I missing anything? I do not see any lyx2lyx part in your patch...
sharp as a razor
Bo Peng wrote:
In this patch, I add a check box 'bypass validation' that will allow
any listings parameters to be passed to lyx/latex if this checkboz is
checked. No file format is changed so no lyx2lyx is needed.
This is not true. You need to change the file format, because if people open
This is not true. You need to change the file format, because if people open
such a file with an older version that doesn't have this checkbox, LyX will
crash.
Let us just forget about RC1, which is meant to be experimental.
1.5.0 == 1.4.x
Current lyx2lyx translate listings to ERT. No
Bo Peng wrote:
Parameters are *not* validated so the file can be compiled as long as
a user is using a capable listings package.
That's a progress indeed.
If some parameter is
acceptable by 1.5.2, but not 1.5.0, a user will be in trouble only
when he use GUI to edit the inset. In this
If some parameter is
acceptable by 1.5.2, but not 1.5.0, a user will be in trouble only
when he use GUI to edit the inset. In this case, he can use this
bypass button.
What happens if he doesn't? An error message?
Then the parameter will be used without problem because they are not
I think we only need to support official releases, but if you insist,
I will do something with lyx2lyx.
Attached please find an updated patch with lyx2lyx support for RC1.
OK to apply?
Cheers,
Bo
Index: src/insets/InsetListingsParams.h
Bo Peng wrote:
> In this patch, I add a check box 'bypass validation' that will allow
> any listings parameters to be passed to lyx/latex if this checkboz is
> checked. No file format is changed so no lyx2lyx is needed.
This is not true. You need to change the file format, because if people open
This is not true. You need to change the file format, because if people open
such a file with an older version that doesn't have this checkbox, LyX will
crash.
Let us just forget about RC1, which is meant to be experimental.
1.5.0 ==> 1.4.x
Current lyx2lyx translate listings to ERT. No
Bo Peng wrote:
> Parameters are *not* validated so the file can be compiled as long as
> a user is using a capable listings package.
That's a progress indeed.
> If some parameter is
> acceptable by 1.5.2, but not 1.5.0, a user will be in trouble only
> when he use GUI to edit the inset. In
> If some parameter is
> acceptable by 1.5.2, but not 1.5.0, a user will be in trouble only
> when he use GUI to edit the inset. In this case, he can use this
> bypass button.
What happens if he doesn't? An error message?
Then the parameter will be used without problem because they are not
I think we only need to support official releases, but if you insist,
I will do something with lyx2lyx.
Attached please find an updated patch with lyx2lyx support for RC1.
OK to apply?
Cheers,
Bo
Index: src/insets/InsetListingsParams.h
Dear all,
I reverted my previous patch that add @para to allow para to bypass
validation. The major problem is the handling @ in lyx2lyx.
In this patch, I add a check box 'bypass validation' that will allow
any listings parameters to be passed to lyx/latex if this checkboz is
checked. No file
Dear all,
I reverted my previous patch that add @para to allow para to bypass
validation. The major problem is the handling @ in lyx2lyx.
In this patch, I add a check box 'bypass validation' that will allow
any listings parameters to be passed to lyx/latex if this checkboz is
checked. No file
48 matches
Mail list logo
