Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Am 27.03.2016 um 21:33 schrieb Uwe Stöhr: Am 19.03.2016 um 08:18 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: Uwe, are you OK with shipping the official RC1 with 5.5.1 and MSVC 2010? From what I understand, that's the recommendation of Georg and Peter and it seems like the safest approach. This is not fine

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:55:04PM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > It's hard to keep track, updates on the situation > would be helpful. OK I will send a new update soon. It is difficult for me to decide when to start a new update thread. For example, we are discussing which Qt version it is

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Le 27/03/2016 23:14, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 09:33:12PM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: So once again, please release RC1. I don't see why we should wait any longer. We all want to release RC1 as soon as possible. But there are blockers. Please see the other threads

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 09:33:12PM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > So once again, please release RC1. I don't see why we should wait any > longer. We all want to release RC1 as soon as possible. But there are blockers. Please see the other threads discussing these issues. We are making progress thanks

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Am 19.03.2016 um 08:18 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: Uwe, are you OK with shipping the official RC1 with 5.5.1 and MSVC 2010? From what I understand, that's the recommendation of Georg and Peter and it seems like the safest approach. This is not fine with me. My spare time is limited and I need

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:29:56AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:19:27AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > > Am 11.03.2016 um 09:48 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > > So why can't there be a step by step rule in our development.lyx that > > everybody can understand? That would

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:19:27AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 11.03.2016 um 09:48 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > So why can't there be a step by step rule in our development.lyx that > everybody can understand? That would be the decision. Good idea. I will work on this. I've spend a few hours

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:08:45PM +1300, Andrew Parsloe wrote: > On 16/03/2016 10:05 a.m., Georg Baum wrote: > >I don't know if MSVC 2012 or 2013 would be more reliable than 2015. What I > >do know is that _any_ compiler switch introduces a risk. If we really > >release 2.2.0 for windows compiled

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

On 16/03/2016 10:05 a.m., Georg Baum wrote: I don't know if MSVC 2012 or 2013 would be more reliable than 2015. What I do know is that _any_ compiler switch introduces a risk. If we really release 2.2.0 for windows compiled with a different compiler we throw away a good part of the testing

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Uwe Stöhr wrote: > This one of Georg's special posts ;-). I read it now again at least 5 > times and still don't understand what I should do. > So I should > 1. rename the existing layout (I guess that is meant with old), but to > what name? A name with the version in it: acmsiggraph080.layout

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Uwe Stöhr wrote: > - we still haven't done anything to fix the 2 layouts that will produce > uncompilable files (acmsiggraph and agutex). Please make a decision and > I will apply it that way.. It would be embarassing when we include > outdated layouts despite that we are aware of this. These

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 14/03/2016 01:21, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : >>> And I only propose a 2.2.0 release with Qt 5.5.1 and msvc10. We could >>> not change compilers and Qt versions like socks. >> >> But the idea of LyX 2.2 was to use Qt 5.6 because this will be a long >> term support

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Le 14/03/2016 20:15, Georg Baum a écrit : Scott Kostyshak wrote: Guillaume committed a fix that was tested by Enrico and Uwe. If you have time to check it, take a look at b3bed292. Works fine and fast for me (but I did never see the crash, only the slowlyness). Very nice, this is exactly

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > Guillaume committed a fix that was tested by Enrico and Uwe. If you have > time to check it, take a look at b3bed292. Works fine and fast for me (but I did never see the crash, only the slowlyness). Very nice, this is exactly what I had in mind but did not now how to

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Le 14/03/2016 01:21, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : And I only propose a 2.2.0 release with Qt 5.5.1 and msvc10. We could not change compilers and Qt versions like socks. But the idea of LyX 2.2 was to use Qt 5.6 because this will be a long term support release. I am not sure why this matters to us

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Am 11.03.2016 um 09:48 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: My decision is that if someone gives you a +1 on a patch that is posted for the two layouts and the lyx2lyx tests pass, then the patch should go in. Sorry, but this is no decision. A decision would be what to do, see below. Why can't we vote

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Am 11.03.2016 um 12:55 schrieb Peter Kümmel: No, not necessary for builds with msvc10. And I only propose a 2.2.0 release with Qt 5.5.1 and msvc10. We could not change compilers and Qt versions like socks. But the idea of LyX 2.2 was to use Qt 5.6 because this will be a long term support

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Am 11.03.2016 um 04:49 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: Will you be able to also release an installer using Qt 5.5.1 and Qt 4.8.6? This would be nice so that if we get a bug report that we can't reproduce, we can ask them to try the 5.5.1 installer and that way we can see whether the bug is due to LyX

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

On 2016-03-11, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:49:16PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:50:25AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: >> > - we still haven't done anything to fix the 2 layouts that will produce >> > uncompilable files (acmsiggraph and agutex).

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Am 11.03.2016 um 04:49 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:50:25AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Am 09.03.2016 um 04:37 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: 8. What am I missing? - I need for Qt 5.6 this patch from Peter to be applied:

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:49:16PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:50:25AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > > - we still haven't done anything to fix the 2 layouts that will produce > > uncompilable files (acmsiggraph and agutex). Please make a decision and I > > will apply it

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:50:25AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 09.03.2016 um 04:37 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > >8. What am I missing? > > - I need for Qt 5.6 this patch from Peter to be applied: > https://github.com/syntheticpp/lyx/commit/2470fb442cb2b04a69b2030f28f1da60221556a7?diff=unified

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 09:40:38PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I think we are getting close to being able to release 2.2.0rc1. We have > > not discussed whether to release a beta3 or move directly to rc1. If > > others disagree with moving directly

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Am 09.03.2016 um 04:37 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: 8. What am I missing? - I need for Qt 5.6 this patch from Peter to be applied: https://github.com/syntheticpp/lyx/commit/2470fb442cb2b04a69b2030f28f1da60221556a7?diff=unified - bug http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10009 - we still haven't done

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > Dear all, > > I think we are getting close to being able to release 2.2.0rc1. We have > not discussed whether to release a beta3 or move directly to rc1. If > others disagree with moving directly to rc1, please do speak up and > let's discuss. rc1 is fine. > Below are

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

On Wednesday, March 09, 2016 01:51:26 PM Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Moving to rc1 is OK. +1 -- José Abílio

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Am 09.03.2016 um 04:37 schrieb Scott Kostyshak : > > Dear all, > > I think we are getting close to being able to release 2.2.0rc1. We have > not discussed whether to release a beta3 or move directly to rc1. If > others disagree with moving directly to rc1, please do speak up

Re: Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Le 09/03/2016 04:37, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : Dear all, I think we are getting close to being able to release 2.2.0rc1. We have not discussed whether to release a beta3 or move directly to rc1. If others disagree with moving directly to rc1, please do speak up and let's discuss. Moving to

Plan for 2.2.0rc1

Dear all, I think we are getting close to being able to release 2.2.0rc1. We have not discussed whether to release a beta3 or move directly to rc1. If others disagree with moving directly to rc1, please do speak up and let's discuss. Below are the items to consider fixing for rc1. 1. Although