Neal Becker wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
José Matos wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 12:06:38 am Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Do you have a better recipe? because I cannot reproduce here...
Funny, it gets even better, because it is a display problem, if you
return
to the formula the results
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
>> On Sunday 22 April 2007 12:06:38 am Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>> Do you have a better recipe? because I cannot reproduce here...
>>
>> Funny, it gets even better, because it is a display problem, if you
>> return
>> to the formula the results sh
José Matos wrote:
On Sunday 22 April 2007 12:06:38 am Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Do you have a better recipe? because I cannot reproduce here...
Funny, it gets even better, because it is a display problem, if you return
to the formula the results shows again.
I am trying to make a reprodu
On Sunday 22 April 2007 12:06:38 am Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>
> Do you have a better recipe? because I cannot reproduce here...
Funny, it gets even better, because it is a display problem, if you return
to the formula the results shows again.
I am trying to make a reproduceable recipe but I
José Matos wrote:
On Saturday 21 April 2007 11:22:27 pm Neal Becker wrote:
5. mathed seems real flaky. Click on a formula. Try adding \sqrt{2} to
the end. It is displayed, but as soon as I click outside the formula it
disappears.
Funny, I know why I did not notice before, this only fails
On Saturday 21 April 2007 11:22:27 pm Neal Becker wrote:
>
> Cool.
>
> 1. Built OK on linux fedora fc6.
All the release process was tested on this distribution, I would be really
surprised if it did not work. ;-)
> 2. Starts OK.
>
> 3. Open a document. Click on some math. Don't see any math
José Matos wrote:
> Hi all,
> as I have promissed the second beta is available from
> http://www.lyx.org/~jamatos/lyx-1.5/
>
> I would appreciate if either Jean-Marc or Lars could copy them to
> ftp://ftp.devel.lyx.org/pub/lyx/pre/
>
> As soon as the transfer is done I will send an announce and
Georg Baum schrieb:
Am Samstag, 21. April 2007 13:26 schrieb Michael Gerz:
If you speak about gbrief2: there are no real style changes.
There were so many changes that I lost track, and compared an older tree
with the current state. There were spelling changes in style names
(Adress
Am Samstag, 21. April 2007 13:26 schrieb Michael Gerz:
> If you speak about gbrief2: there are no real style changes.
There were so many changes that I lost track, and compared an older tree
with the current state. There were spelling changes in style names
(Adress -> Address). I rechecked with
Georg Baum schrieb:
Michael Gerz wrote:
What file format change are you talking about? Does it still break
backwards compatibility?
AFAIK yes. Renaming styles is a fileformat change unless you use the
"obsoletedby" (spelling?) feature.
Which were the styles that we renamed?
If yo
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, José Matos wrote:
Jose is but he could use some help from you and Christian I guess :-)
Every little bit helps. :-)
A public thank you to Uwe and Christian for the help given processing
the relevant information. :-)
The credit goes to Uwe!
Thanks Uwe,
/Christian
--
On Monday 16 April 2007 10:26:28 am Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > I'm a bit worried about how you discussed this topic, so let me propose
> > a plan:
> >
> > 1. We've made a HUGE step forward toward LyX 1.5.0 since beta 1, so put
> > the beta 2 out now!
> >We need more people
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, José Matos wrote:
On Friday 20 April 2007 3:48:02 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, José Matos wrote:
Since I will be busy today, and I still need to update the ANNOUNCE and
NEWS files I will release beta 2 tomorrow.
Should I make some wiki page that "inc
On Saturday 21 April 2007 9:12:20 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, José Matos wrote:
> >> The first page belongs to the now obsolete/crashed/deleted development
> >> wiki.
> >
> > The page is now not only obsolete but also redundant. :-)
>
> Good - I've erased its contents and pl
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, José Matos wrote:
The first page belongs to the now obsolete/crashed/deleted development
wiki.
The page is now not only obsolete but also redundant. :-)
Good - I've erased its contents and placed a note about it.
/C
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44
On Friday 20 April 2007 3:57:47 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, José Matos wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am preparing to tag and release beta 2.
> >
> > I took this chance and I have documented the procedure in
> > http://wiki.lyx.org/Devel/ReleaseProcedure
>
> Did you check the f
On Friday 20 April 2007 3:48:02 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, José Matos wrote:
> > Since I will be busy today, and I still need to update the ANNOUNCE and
> > NEWS files I will release beta 2 tomorrow.
>
> Should I make some wiki page that "includes" the ANNOUNCE and NEWS fil
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, José Matos wrote:
Hi,
I am preparing to tag and release beta 2.
I took this chance and I have documented the procedure in
http://wiki.lyx.org/Devel/ReleaseProcedure
Did you check the following page?
http://wiki.lyx.org/devel/pmwiki.php/Devel/Relea
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, José Matos wrote:
Since I will be busy today, and I still need to update the ANNOUNCE and
NEWS files I will release beta 2 tomorrow.
Should I make some wiki page that "includes" the ANNOUNCE and NEWS files?
(Or will those automatically appear at www.lyx.org?)
/Christian
On Thursday 19 April 2007 6:11:06 pm José Matos wrote:
> Hi,
> I am preparing to tag and release beta 2.
>
> I took this chance and I have documented the procedure in
> http://wiki.lyx.org/Devel/ReleaseProcedure
>
> I will fix it during the way. :-)
>
> So if you have someth
Richard Heck wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Hi,
I am preparing to tag and release beta 2.
So if you have something that is really, really, really
urgent speak now or wait for post beta 2. :-)
the math toolbar stuff?
I'm new, so don't listen to me,
So why are spea
patch 3 (small):
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/17869
adjust a couple of icons dimensions to avoid the problems enrico saw (we
probably need more of these)
2nd patch:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/17868
adds the menus and panels
first patch is in:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/17867
this one introduces the toolbar backend refactoring
On Thursday 19 April 2007 6:11:06 pm José Matos wrote:
> Hi,
> I am preparing to tag and release beta 2.
>
> I took this chance and I have documented the procedure in
> http://wiki.lyx.org/Devel/ReleaseProcedure
>
> I will fix it during the way. :-)
>
> So if you have someth
José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 19 April 2007 7:13:05 pm Edwin Leuven wrote:
> So if you have something that is really, really, really
> urgent speak now or wait for post beta 2. :-)
the math toolbar stuff?
Put it in.
great! i will also remove math panel (which is redundant now) u
On Thursday 19 April 2007 7:13:05 pm Edwin Leuven wrote:
> >
> >So if you have something that is really, really, really
> > urgent speak now or wait for post beta 2. :-)
>
> the math toolbar stuff?
Put it in.
--
José Abílio
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:04:26PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > The patch works with Qt 4.1 but for some reason the \leqq and \geqq
> > symbols (the first two symbols in "AMS Relations") are displayed as
> > \leq and \geq (see attached qt414.png).
>
> and with the atta
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I am preparing to tag and release beta 2.
> > So if you have something that is really, really, really
> > urgent speak now or wait for post beta 2. :-)
>
> the math toolbar stuff?
I'm new, so don't listen to me, but I'd agree. This is
José Matos wrote:
Hi,
I am preparing to tag and release beta 2.
>So if you have something that is really, really, really
> urgent speak now or wait for post beta 2. :-)
the math toolbar stuff?
On Friday 13 April 2007 5:04:10 pm Georg Baum wrote:
> I am not sure when we really use blocker.
It is matter of convention, if we agree with your classification we could
change the bug reports so that this information does not get lost and is
concentrated in a single place.
> Georg
--
José
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
The patch works with Qt 4.1 but for some reason the \leqq and \geqq
symbols (the first two symbols in "AMS Relations") are displayed as
\leq and \geq (see attached qt414.png).
and with the attached icons?
/* XPM */
static char *a[] = {
/* columns rows colors chars-per-
Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I understand that and I should probably make the same decision someday.
If you can find some free time, I would only request that you finish the
CJK LateX support (bug 3043) as I really don't think I could do it. Or
perhaps JMarc or Enrico could finish
On Thursday 19 April 2007 9:20:06 am Georg Baum wrote:
> AFAIK yes. Renaming styles is a fileformat change unless you use the
> "obsoletedby" (spelling?) feature.
ObsoletedBy is now deprecated by lyx2lyx.
> Georg
--
José Abílio
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 9:41:27 pm Edwin Leuven wrote:
> 4. i was editing some tables and deleting rows resulted in the deletion
> of rows other than the one the cursor was in (i haven't been able to
> reproduce this, but it happened)
I had several crashes when selecting table parts. The emerge
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> I understand that and I should probably make the same decision someday.
> If you can find some free time, I would only request that you finish the
> CJK LateX support (bug 3043) as I really don't think I could do it. Or
> perhaps JMarc or Enrico could finish it?
It is r
Michael Gerz wrote:
> What file format change are you talking about? Does it still break
> backwards compatibility?
AFAIK yes. Renaming styles is a fileformat change unless you use the
"obsoletedby" (spelling?) feature.
Georg
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I personally arrive at saturation. I simply cannot maintain this
rhythm. What I really mean is that 1.5.0svn is good enough for me and
for a lot of people already. So, even if we did not solve all 1.4
regressions WRT 1.3, I reckon that 1.5 is very s
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:32:04PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
But surely you could run the script and then have a look at what you
had, re-doing by hand those that needed to be redone by hand. It'd at
least be worth investigating, if no-one has yet tried it. Of course,
s
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:12:39PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:33:56PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
what do you see when you have large icons (right click on toolbar and
select big-sized icons)?
Doh! I would say
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:32:04PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:12:39PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> >
> >> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:33:56PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
>
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:12:39PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
>
>> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:33:56PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
>>>
>>>
what do you see when you have large icons (right click on toolbar and
sele
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:12:39PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:33:56PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> >
> >> what do you see when you have large icons (right click on toolbar and
> >> select big-sized icons)?
> >>
> >
> > Doh! I would
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:33:56PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
>
>> what do you see when you have large icons (right click on toolbar and
>> select big-sized icons)?
>>
>
> Doh! I would say "Elementary, Watson!". You're right, there's no mistery.
> Qt 4.1 truncate
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:53:15PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Edwin Leuven wrote:
> >
> > i think this happens when qt scales the icons.
>
> One clean solution would be to avoid the pixmaps and let Qt display the
> symbols directly (as done in mathed). This is what I did in the
> Delimit
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:33:56PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > I am sorry but there are some wrong notes ;-)
>
> false ones ... ;-)
>
> > The patch works with Qt 4.1 but for some reason the \leqq and \geqq
> > symbols (the first two symbols in "AMS Relations") are di
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I personally arrive at saturation. I simply cannot maintain this rhythm.
What I really mean is that 1.5.0svn is good enough for me and for a lot
of people already. So, even if we did not solve all 1.4 regressions WRT
1.3, I reckon that 1.5 is very stable (stabler than 1
Michael Gerz wrote:
Georg Baum schrieb:
On the scrollbar issue, what can I say? I more or less know what needs
to be done but I cannot do that without further cleanup. I'll promise to
do something for 1.5.1 but not now.
In order to destabilize 1.5.1 because of the cleanup?
I fully ag
Edwin Leuven wrote:
i think this happens when qt scales the icons.
One clean solution would be to avoid the pixmaps and let Qt display the
symbols directly (as done in mathed). This is what I did in the
Delimiters dialog. Unfortunately this is a lot of work considering the
number of icons.
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
I am sorry but there are some wrong notes ;-)
false ones ... ;-)
The patch works with Qt 4.1 but for some reason the \leqq and \geqq
symbols (the first two symbols in "AMS Relations") are displayed as
\leq and \geq (see attached qt414.png). This happens both on Solari
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 02:36:06PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > Wow! Edwin, this is the best thing since sliced bread, IMHO.
> > This is something I had always dreamed of having in LyX.
> > A big thank you!
>
> :-) good to hear some happy sounds on the list...
I am so
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 04:35:55PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 02:32:57PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >> I always think before commit :-)
> >
> > Abdel, I think that you are missing the point here. Please reread what
> > Georg said.
Georg Baum schrieb:
On the scrollbar issue, what can I say? I more or less know what needs
to be done but I cannot do that without further cleanup. I'll promise to
do something for 1.5.1 but not now.
In order to destabilize 1.5.1 because of the cleanup?
I fully agree with Georg. If ma
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 02:32:57PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
José Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 1:01:46 pm Enrico Forestieri wrote:
For me real
communication looks like this:
1) Developer X sends a patch and explains what it is doing
2) Developer Y fin
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 02:32:57PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 April 2007 1:01:46 pm Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>> For me real
> >>> communication looks like this:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Developer X sends a patch and explains what it is doing
> >>> 2) Developer
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:52:18AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Not if LyX is concerned (since you are investing much more time), but if the
question is how I spend my spare time then my opinion is the only one that
matters.
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
Wow! Edwin, this is the best thing since sliced bread, IMHO.
This is something I had always dreamed of having in LyX.
A big thank you!
:-) good to hear some happy sounds on the list...
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:13:26PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
The only issue I see are the default icons, for instance see the
function list.
should be fine with this one:
http://leuven.ecodip.net/lyx/tb7.patch
Wow! Edwin, this is the best thing
José Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 1:01:46 pm Enrico Forestieri wrote:
For me real
communication looks like this:
1) Developer X sends a patch and explains what it is doing
2) Developer Y finds a problem and possibly presents a solution
3) Developer X confirms that the solution still
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:13:26PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > The only issue I see are the default icons, for instance see the
> > function list.
>
> should be fine with this one:
>
> http://leuven.ecodip.net/lyx/tb7.patch
Wow! Edwin, this is the best thing since slice
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:52:18AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
> > Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>
> > Not if LyX is concerned (since you are investing much more time), but if the
> > question is how I spend my spare time then my opinion is the only one that
> > matters. And ple
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 1:01:46 pm Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > For me real
> > communication looks like this:
> >
> > 1) Developer X sends a patch and explains what it is doing
> > 2) Developer Y finds a problem and possibly presents a solution
> > 3) Developer X confirms that the solution stil
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:18:11AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>
> Yes, there are discussions now, but some days ago there was some bug ping
> pong (IIRC between you, Enrico and Uwe, but I may be wrong).
Please don't bring me in there ;-)
> For me real
> communication lo
Peter Kümmel wrote:
The only issue I see are the default icons, for instance see the
function list.
should be fine with this one:
http://leuven.ecodip.net/lyx/tb7.patch
Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Not if LyX is concerned (since you are investing much more time), but if the
question is how I spend my spare time then my opinion is the only one that
matters. And please don't think that I made this decision becaue of you,
your mail was only the las
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
>> Am Samstag, 14. April 2007 15:23 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
>>> Georg Baum wrote:
Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 21:38 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> Just look at the traffic on the user list.
> There is no such thing as a "lost reputation" in
José Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 6:55:31 pm Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Tested here. No problems with msvc. But I have to install the font,
>> reconfiguring doesn't work.
>>
>> This is a big improvement when editing formulas, and it is not
>> under the hood only, it is a great visible user f
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 6:55:31 pm Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Tested here. No problems with msvc. But I have to install the font,
> reconfiguring doesn't work.
>
> This is a big improvement when editing formulas, and it is not
> under the hood only, it is a great visible user friendly change,
> so I al
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>> I agree for controversial code. And this is the reason why for example
>> I didn't push strongly for Edwin's toolbar work
>
> i think that the code is rather uncontroversial, the timing however is
> (and i understand why)
>
> that being said, i wo
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 10:02:27 am Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Sorry but we cannot wait for Jose to approve all patches. No offence
> Jose but you obviously don't have the time to do so.
Clearly we have a problem of communication here. :-)
The idea of showing the code is not to have my OK for ev
José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 10:02:27 am Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Sorry but we cannot wait for Jose to approve all patches. No offence
Jose but you obviously don't have the time to do so.
Clearly we have a problem of communication here. :-)
The idea of showing the code is not to
OK, let's go for another lengthy discussion... Warning: lots of personal
stuff in there. But our hero is not killed at the end, don't worry :-)
Georg Baum wrote:
Am Samstag, 14. April 2007 15:23 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Georg Baum wrote:
Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 21:38 schrieb Abdelrazak Y
Am Samstag, 14. April 2007 15:23 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> Georg Baum wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 21:38 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> >> Georg Baum wrote:
> >>
> I don't share your pessimism, especially
> if we are to compare current SVN with the state of 1.4.0 when it was
>
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>>3. 3-4 weeks after beta 2 we discuss the release again to have a
definite release date.
> I think we should set the release date now, independently from the
remaining bugs. I propose
> approximatively one month after beta 2, say May 15.
Please let us wait for the re
> IMO we should not wait an additional month. We should do that now.
Of course!
>>3. 3-4 weeks after beta 2 we discuss the release again to have a definite
release date.
> I think we should set the release date now, independently from the remaining
bugs. I propose
> approximatively one mo
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
I'm a bit worried about how you discussed this topic, so let me propose
a plan:
1. We've made a HUGE step forward toward LyX 1.5.0 since beta 1, so put
the beta 2 out now!
We need more people to test our efforts in bugfixing. That's why I
publish new 1.5svn-versions
for
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I hope this was friday speak, otherwise you just insulted several
> > developers (not me, but if you look at the lfun mechanism at least
> > Jean-Marc and Angus).
>
> Of course this was friday speak. But, as a side note, nothing should be
> set
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Georg Baum wrote:
That is not a good comparison. 1.4.0 should not have been released in
that
state, otherwise we would not have users still using 1.3.
Switching or not to 1.4 has *nothing* to do with the stability of 1.4.0.
Users switched when they see something th
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 11:52:10AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> Obviously we have different quality demands concerning a stable release.
> IMO it is no good sign if 1.5.0 is released with a bigger number of known
> bugs and regressions to 1.4.x, than 1.4.0 (which already was released with
> a big n
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 11:39:51AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> > Switching or not to 1.4 has *nothing* to do with the stability of 1.4.0.
>
> Yes, not of 1.4.0 anymore, but of current 1.4svn. And that does still
> suffer from a too early released 1.4.0.
1.4.0 was not released 'too early' if 'earl
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Michael Gerz wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Maintaining a list of show stoppers might be easier using bugzilla
directly - I don't know. The page's there now in case anyone wants to use
it.
I don't think it is a good idea to maintain multiple lists of bugs.
I don't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Maintaining a list of show stoppers might be easier using bugzilla
directly - I don't know. The page's there now in case anyone wants to
use it.
I don't think it is a good idea to maintain multiple lists of bugs.
bugzilla is made EXACTLY for the purpose of capturing
Georg Baum wrote:
Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 21:38 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Georg Baum wrote:
I don't share your pessimism, especially
if we are to compare current SVN with the state of 1.4.0 when it was
released.
That is not a good comparison. 1.4.0 should not have been released in
that
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
So, here is my list of show stoppers:
http: //bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043
http: //bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3291
http: //bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3346
http: //bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3404
http: //bugzilla.lyx.org/sh
Am Samstag, 14. April 2007 13:17 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> Georg Baum wrote:
> > Obviously we have different quality demands concerning a stable
release.
>
> I don't understand how this is a show stopper. The only problem is that
> you have more grey area than needed (ideally there should be
Am Samstag, 14. April 2007 13:13 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> Georg Baum wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 22:07 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> >
> >>> http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3449
> >> I'll try to solve this one, even though I know nothing about math
> > macro...
> >
> > Great
Georg Baum wrote:
Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 21:55 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Georg Baum wrote:
If you want something to work on: 3427 was introduced by you with the
metrics reorganization, and it happens always for me.
I don't think this has anything to do with metrics. It is an artefact of
Georg Baum wrote:
Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 22:07 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3449
I'll try to solve this one, even though I know nothing about math
macro...
Great! Some more info: This has probably nothing to do with macros, but
with a not working Fo
Georg Baum schrieb:
Just look at the traffic on the user list.
There is no such thing as a "lost reputation" in an open source project.
Of course there is. But you can't see that from the mailing list of a
project, because most people who think it is crap simply ignore it and use
somet
Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 22:07 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> > http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3449
>
> I'll try to solve this one, even though I know nothing about math
macro...
Great! Some more info: This has probably nothing to do with macros, but
with a not working FontSetChanger.
Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 21:55 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> Georg Baum wrote:
>
> > If you want something to work on: 3427 was introduced by you with the
> > metrics reorganization, and it happens always for me.
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with metrics. It is an artefact of
> the
Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 21:38 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> Georg Baum wrote:
>
> >> I don't share your pessimism, especially
> >> if we are to compare current SVN with the state of 1.4.0 when it was
> >> released.
> >
> > That is not a good comparison. 1.4.0 should not have been released in
Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Please list the show stoppers.
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3291
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3332
No show stopper. Plaintext export is much improved in 1.5.
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3346
http://bugzilla.lyx
Georg Baum wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Please list the show stoppers.
If you want something to work on: 3427 was introduced by you with the
metrics reorganization, and it happens always for me.
I don't think this has anything to do with metrics. It is an artefact of
the crappy scrollb
Georg Baum wrote:
I don't share your pessimism, especially
if we are to compare current SVN with the state of 1.4.0 when it was
released.
That is not a good comparison. 1.4.0 should not have been released in that
state, otherwise we would not have users still using 1.3.
Switching or not to
Richard Heck wrote:
> And, Abdel, if you can tell me what bugs are so intransigent, I'll try
> to have a look. I seem to have an ability to find the cause of a bug and
> then outline a solution. Getting all the details into the code takes me
> forever, since C++ is not my native language. So maybe
Richard Heck wrote:
> Is there some kind of flag that could be set on these in bugzilla?
The target milestone. It is a bit difficult, because all bugs with milestone
1.4.x should be audited, and either moved to 1.5.0 or 1.5.x. And of course
we have some bugs with milestone 1.5.0 that should be po
Is there some kind of flag that could be set on these in bugzilla? Could
they be marked "blocker", or is that for something else? I ask just
because it seems like we need such a list that can be updated, etc.
Georg Baum wrote:
> http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2552
> http://bugzilla.lyx.o
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
>> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>
>>> Friendly reminder Jose ;-)
>>>
>>> Just wanted to add that, for my needs, 1.5.0 is basically "ready". Sure,
>>> we have some bugs left but nothing that can stop someone to use it on a
>>> daily basis, at least not me
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>> IMO 1.5.0 is not ready at all (but of course we need the next beta,
>> and I predict that it will not be the last one).
> Please list the show stoppers. I don't share your pessimism,
> especially if we are to compare current SVN with the state of 1.4.0
> when it was rele
101 - 200 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
