Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 28.01.2013 07:54, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: The linebreak is necessary to get the city in its own line. This is a requirement for some job applications. At least that was once reported to me. Look, the problem is that some modernCV themes (casual, which has the address information in the

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 28.01.2013 07:54, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: The linebreak is necessary to get the city in its own line. This is a requirement for some job applications. At least that was once reported to me. Look, the problem is that some modernCV themes (casual, which has the address information in the

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 26.01.2013 18:23, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: I cannot reproduce the failure you get when removing the linebreak. I can reproduce the failure with a different theme. But I cannot see how the layout update fixes this. Instead, the error goes away if the address declaration in the preamble is

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 28.01.2013 03:07, schrieb Uwe Stöhr: OK. I will fix this then. This cannot be fixed, because in trunk the new default theme is used. in branch I cannot use this because the document will then become uncompilable. The linebreak is necessary to get the city in its own line. This is a

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Uwe Stöhr wrote: I don't know why but this does not occur with the new layout in trunk. Of course it does. See attached document. Or show me how to insert a linebreak in the address layout with the casual theme in the new layout that does _not_ trigger a error. Jürgen modernCV-trunk.lyx

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Uwe Stöhr wrote: This cannot be fixed, because in trunk the new default theme is used. in branch I cannot use this because the document will then become uncompilable. No it won't. Attached is a branch version that compiles with the casual theme. All I did here is changing the theme and

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 26.01.2013 18:23, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: I cannot reproduce the failure you get when removing the linebreak. I can reproduce the failure with a different theme. But I cannot see how the layout update fixes this. Instead, the error goes away if the address declaration in the preamble is

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 28.01.2013 03:07, schrieb Uwe Stöhr: OK. I will fix this then. This cannot be fixed, because in trunk the new default theme is used. in branch I cannot use this because the document will then become uncompilable. The linebreak is necessary to get the city in its own line. This is a

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Uwe Stöhr wrote: > I don't know why but this does not occur with the new layout in trunk. Of course it does. See attached document. Or show me how to insert a linebreak in the address layout with the casual theme in the new layout that does _not_ trigger a error. Jürgen modernCV-trunk.lyx

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Uwe Stöhr wrote: > This cannot be fixed, because in trunk the new default theme is used. in > branch I cannot use this because the document will then become > uncompilable. No it won't. Attached is a branch version that compiles with the casual theme. All I did here is changing the theme and

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 26.01.2013 05:05, schrieb Uwe Stöhr: Damn, you are right. Damn me, of course you were not right. As soon as you e.g. change something in the example file it becomes uncompilable. Use for example another theme or remove the linebreak in the address. I now nevertheless reverted everything

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Uwe Stöhr wrote: As soon as you e.g. change something in the example file it becomes uncompilable. Use for example another theme or remove the linebreak in the address. I cannot reproduce the feilure you get when removing the linebreak. I can reproduce the failure with a different theme. But

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 26.01.2013 05:05, schrieb Uwe Stöhr: Damn, you are right. Damn me, of course you were not right. As soon as you e.g. change something in the example file it becomes uncompilable. Use for example another theme or remove the linebreak in the address. I now nevertheless reverted everything

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Uwe Stöhr wrote: > As soon as you e.g. change something in the example file it > becomes uncompilable. Use for example another theme or remove the linebreak > in the address. I cannot reproduce the feilure you get when removing the linebreak. I can reproduce the failure with a different theme.

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 21.01.2013 22:15, schrieb Georg Baum: That is what I always stated, non of my changes (except of that nasty modernCV beast) break the backward-compatibility in the strict sense but they introduce new commands and that is what this thread is about. Yes. In the beginning, I thought that

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 22.01.2013 15:19, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: You added 14 styles of InPreamble type (CVStyle, CVColor, FirstName, FamilyName, Title, Address, Mobile, Phone, Fax, Email, Homepage, ExtraInfo, Photo and Quote). None of these are needed to keep the layout working with recent releases of

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 22.01.2013 15:45, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: I now also reverted your changes locally, and it turns out that the (old) moderncv example file still works without any single problem with the old layout. This is with most recent TL (2012/12/04 v1.2.1 of moderncv.cls). Damn, you are right. I

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 21.01.2013 22:15, schrieb Georg Baum: That is what I always stated, non of my changes (except of that nasty modernCV beast) break the backward-compatibility in the strict sense but they introduce new commands and that is what this thread is about. Yes. In the beginning, I thought that

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 22.01.2013 15:19, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: You added 14 styles of "InPreamble" type (CVStyle, CVColor, FirstName, FamilyName, Title, Address, Mobile, Phone, Fax, Email, Homepage, ExtraInfo, Photo and Quote). None of these are needed to keep the layout working with recent releases of

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 22.01.2013 15:45, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: I now also reverted your changes locally, and it turns out that the (old) moderncv example file still works without any single problem with the old layout. This is with most recent TL (2012/12/04 v1.2.1 of moderncv.cls). Damn, you are right. I

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Uwe Stöhr wrote: The same holds for moderncv. The author does support backward compatibility so I would be interested to see what actually does not work anymore. I had a look today and I cannot fiddle it out. The underlying table structure until modernCV 1.0 makes it complicated. With

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: In sum: As much as these changes enhance the support for moderncv, none of them is really needed to keep moderncv working. I now also reverted your changes locally, and it turns out that the (old) moderncv example file still works without any single problem with the

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Uwe Stöhr wrote: > > The same holds for moderncv. The author does support backward > > compatibility so I would be interested to see what actually does not work > > anymore. > > I had a look today and I cannot fiddle it out. The underlying table > structure until modernCV 1.0 makes it

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > In sum: As much as these changes enhance the support for moderncv, none of > them is really needed to keep moderncv working. I now also reverted your changes locally, and it turns out that the (old) moderncv example file still works without any single problem with

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 21/01/13 00:51, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : Am 15.01.2013 22:36, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: The same holds for moderncv. The author does support backward compatibility so I would be interested to see what actually does not work anymore. I had a look today and I cannot fiddle it out. The

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 21/01/13 00:55, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : Am 16.01.2013 10:19, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: We also have the right to consider the new commands and the necessity to support them right _now_. It may be that they are really required, but I bet that in many cases they will only correspond to corner

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Uwe Stöhr wrote: Am 15.01.2013 22:24, schrieb Georg Baum: IMHO, IEEEtran.cls does not support Uwe's reasoning at all, but rather the oppsosite. And I'd really like to see _one_ example of an updated journal/conference .cls file that broke an officially supported LyX .layout file (and no,

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Richard Heck wrote: It's currently possible to edit such a file without data loss, if I'm not mistaken. The unrecognized layouts are treated as Standard, but they retain their labels. It is even possible to insert new such layouts (or insets) and save the file. So the edit only mode isn't

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 21.01.2013 09:34, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: But only sometimes. That is no accuse for not providing everything that might be demanded by a journal. Sure, but it has to be done case-by-case. My point is that the argument should not be all layouts should be updated to match the latest

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 21/01/13 00:51, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : Am 15.01.2013 22:36, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: The same holds for moderncv. The author does support backward compatibility so I would be interested to see what actually does not work anymore. I had a look today and I cannot fiddle it out. The

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 21/01/13 00:55, Uwe Stöhr a écrit : Am 16.01.2013 10:19, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: We also have the right to consider the new commands and the necessity to support them right _now_. It may be that they are really required, but I bet that in many cases they will only correspond to corner

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 15.01.2013 22:24, schrieb Georg Baum: > >> IMHO, IEEEtran.cls does not support Uwe's reasoning at all, but rather >> the oppsosite. And I'd really like to see _one_ example of an updated >> journal/conference .cls file that broke an officially supported LyX >> .layout file

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Richard Heck wrote: > It's currently possible to edit such a file without data loss, if I'm > not mistaken. The unrecognized layouts are treated as "Standard", but > they retain their labels. It is even possible to insert new such layouts > (or insets) and save the file. So the "edit only" mode

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 21.01.2013 09:34, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: But only sometimes. That is no accuse for not providing everything that might be demanded by a journal. Sure, but it has to be done case-by-case. My point is that the argument should not be "all layouts should be updated to match the latest

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 14.01.2013 11:28, schrieb Enrico Forestieri: Nothing. If you do nothing, you break nothing. http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/8503#comment:1 Thanks for having a look. There might be a bug in MiKTeX's packaging. But that is not the main problem. The problem is once again that there are new

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 15.01.2013 22:24, schrieb Georg Baum: IMHO, IEEEtran.cls does not support Uwe's reasoning at all, but rather the oppsosite. And I'd really like to see _one_ example of an updated journal/conference .cls file that broke an officially supported LyX .layout file (and no, unless somebody

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 15.01.2013 22:36, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: The same holds for moderncv. The author does support backward compatibility so I would be interested to see what actually does not work anymore. I had a look today and I cannot fiddle it out. The underlying table structure until modernCV 1.0

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 16.01.2013 10:19, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: We also have the right to consider the new commands and the necessity to support them right _now_. It may be that they are really required, but I bet that in many cases they will only correspond to corner cases. But only sometimes. That is

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 14.01.2013 11:28, schrieb Enrico Forestieri: Nothing. If you do nothing, you break nothing. http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/8503#comment:1 Thanks for having a look. There might be a bug in MiKTeX's packaging. But that is not the main problem. The problem is once again that there are new

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 15.01.2013 22:24, schrieb Georg Baum: IMHO, IEEEtran.cls does not support Uwe's reasoning at all, but rather the oppsosite. And I'd really like to see _one_ example of an updated journal/conference .cls file that broke an officially supported LyX .layout file (and no, unless somebody

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 15.01.2013 22:36, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: The same holds for moderncv. The author does support backward compatibility so I would be interested to see what actually does not work anymore. I had a look today and I cannot fiddle it out. The underlying table structure until modernCV 1.0

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 16.01.2013 10:19, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: We also have the right to consider the new commands and the necessity to support them right _now_. It may be that they are really required, but I bet that in many cases they will only correspond to corner cases. But only sometimes. That is

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 04:13:31PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: On 01/16/2013 03:39 PM, Georg Baum wrote: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_ commands and that the user creates a document using

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 01/17/2013 01:53 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 04:13:31PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: On 01/16/2013 03:39 PM, Georg Baum wrote: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 04:13:31PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > On 01/16/2013 03:39 PM, Georg Baum wrote: > >Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > >>Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : > >>>Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_ commands > >>>and that the user creates a

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 01/17/2013 01:53 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 04:13:31PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: On 01/16/2013 03:39 PM, Georg Baum wrote: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_ commands and that the user creates a document using those new commands that the 2.0.5 layout supports. What happens if a collaborator opens this document in 2.0.3? Will it work, or will

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes lasgout...@lyx.org wrote: Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_ commands and that the user creates a document using those new commands that the 2.0.5 layout supports. What

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 01/16/2013 02:53 AM, Liviu Andronic wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Georg Baum georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de wrote: versions are backward incompatible: I only saw new commands, not changed or deleted old ones). Therefore, the best option is IMNSHO to use one of the several

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_ commands and that the user creates a document using those new commands that the 2.0.5 layout supports. What happens if a collaborator opens this document in

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 01/16/2013 03:39 PM, Georg Baum wrote: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_ commands and that the user creates a document using those new commands that the 2.0.5 layout supports. What happens if

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_ commands and that the user creates a document using those new commands that the 2.0.5 layout supports. What happens if a collaborator opens this document in 2.0.3? Will it work, or will

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : > >> Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_ commands >> and that the user creates a document using those new commands that the >> 2.0.5 layout

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 01/16/2013 02:53 AM, Liviu Andronic wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Georg Baum wrote: versions are backward incompatible: I only saw new commands, not changed or deleted old ones). Therefore, the best option is IMNSHO to use one of the several

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : >> Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_ commands >> and that the user creates a document using those new commands that the >> 2.0.5 layout supports. What happens if a collaborator opens this >>

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 01/16/2013 03:39 PM, Georg Baum wrote: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 16/01/2013 08:53, Liviu Andronic a écrit : Consider that the updated layout (in 2.0.5) contains _new_ commands and that the user creates a document using those new commands that the 2.0.5 layout supports. What happens if

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Guenter Milde wrote: On 2013-01-14, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:33:36AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: But to come to an end, decide once again but please act then consistently. I will have to update IEEEtran and I want to know from you what I should do now. Nothing. If

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 15/01/2013 22:24, Georg Baum a écrit : IMHO, IEEEtran.cls does not support Uwe's reasoning at all, but rather the oppsosite. And I'd really like to see _one_ example of an updated journal/conference .cls file that broke an officially supported LyX .layout file (and no, unless somebody

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Georg Baum georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de wrote: versions are backward incompatible: I only saw new commands, not changed or deleted old ones). Therefore, the best option is IMNSHO to use one of the several suggestions of versioned layouts, _if_ new layouts

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2013-01-14, Enrico Forestieri wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:33:36AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > >>> But to come to an end, decide once again but please act then >>> consistently. I will have to update IEEEtran and I want to know from >>> you what I should do now. >

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 15/01/2013 22:24, Georg Baum a écrit : IMHO, IEEEtran.cls does not support Uwe's reasoning at all, but rather the oppsosite. And I'd really like to see _one_ example of an updated journal/conference .cls file that broke an officially supported LyX .layout file (and no, unless somebody

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Georg Baum wrote: > versions are backward incompatible: I only saw new commands, not changed or > deleted old ones). > Therefore, the best option is IMNSHO to use one of the several suggestions > of versioned layouts, _if_ new

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:33:36AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: But to come to an end, decide once again but please act then consistently. I will have to update IEEEtran and I want to know from you what I should do now. Nothing. If you do nothing, you break nothing.

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 2013-01-14, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Am 02.01.2013 15:42, schrieb Richard Heck: I want: - for paper submission classes we can change the layout for every LyX release (this might break backward compatibility but for these classes you are not allowed to use older class versions) - for

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Hello Uwe On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Uwe Stöhr uwesto...@web.de wrote: The Windows installer is your business. That is not fair. We can assume that at least 50% of our users use LyX on Windows. This is harsh reasoning. In many cases open-source projects only take responsibility for

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 2013-01-14, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:33:36AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: But to come to an end, decide once again but please act then consistently. I will have to update IEEEtran and I want to know from you what I should do now. Nothing. If you do nothing, you

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:33:36AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > But to come to an end, decide once again but please act then > consistently. I will have to update IEEEtran and I want to know from > you what I should do now. Nothing. If you do nothing, you break nothing.

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 2013-01-14, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 02.01.2013 15:42, schrieb Richard Heck: > I want: > - for paper submission classes we can change the layout for every LyX > release (this might break backward compatibility but for these > classes you are not allowed to use older class versions) > - for

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Hello Uwe On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: >> The Windows installer is your business. > > That is not fair. We can assume that at least 50% of our users use LyX on > Windows. > This is harsh reasoning. In many cases open-source projects only take

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 2013-01-14, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:33:36AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: >> But to come to an end, decide once again but please act then >> consistently. I will have to update IEEEtran and I want to know from >> you what I should do now. > Nothing. If you do nothing,

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 02.01.2013 15:42, schrieb Richard Heck: I'm sorry, Uwe, but you simply are not listening to what anyone else is saying. No one is saying we should not provide updated layout files, force people to enter TeX code, or whatever. The ONLY issue is what the names of these new layouts will be.

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 02.01.2013 15:42, schrieb Richard Heck: I'm sorry, Uwe, but you simply are not listening to what anyone else is saying. No one is saying we should not provide updated layout files, force people to enter TeX code, or whatever. The ONLY issue is what the names of these new layouts will be.

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Can we please revert the moderncv and achemso changes in branch unless we have come to a final conclusion? Jürgen

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 01/01/2013 10:34 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Am 16.12.2012 19:33, schrieb Richard Heck: 1. backward compatibility Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but if your main concern is the example or template file, then there is no issue here. I have already said that I have no objection to

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Can we please revert the moderncv and achemso changes in branch unless we have come to a final conclusion? Jürgen

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 01/01/2013 10:34 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Am 16.12.2012 19:33, schrieb Richard Heck: 1. backward compatibility Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but if your main concern is the example or template file, then there is no issue here. I have already said that I have no objection to

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 16.12.2012 19:33, schrieb Richard Heck: 1. backward compatibility Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but if your main concern is the example or template file, then there is no issue here. I have already said that I have no objection to making the example and template files be up to

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 17.12.2012 17:19, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: While looking into moderncv.cls, I saw an interesting line: \RequirePackageWithOptions{moderncvcompatibility} Looking inside this file is indeed interesting: % compatibility with version 0.1

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 16.12.2012 19:33, schrieb Richard Heck: 1. backward compatibility Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but if your main concern is the example or template file, then there is no issue here. I have already said that I have no objection to making the example and template files be up to

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Am 17.12.2012 17:19, schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: While looking into moderncv.cls, I saw an interesting line: \RequirePackageWithOptions{moderncvcompatibility} Looking inside this file is indeed interesting: % compatibility with version 0.1

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 16/12/2012 19:33, Richard Heck a écrit : Let me address the last point first. I do not see why you think versioning makes more work. Why would you have to write three different layouts? To support every single version of moderncv? We don't do that now, as you said. Why would we have to do it

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 12/17/2012 04:57 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 16/12/2012 19:33, Richard Heck a écrit : Let me address the last point first. I do not see why you think versioning makes more work. Why would you have to write three different layouts? To support every single version of moderncv? We don't

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 17/12/2012 16:32, Richard Heck a écrit : How does LaTeX figure out the version, if we include that in \usepackage? Or is that the worry, that not all classes do it the same way? I was kind of thinking that we'd actually make this check in chkconfig.ltx. Perhaps using something like:

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 16/12/2012 19:33, Richard Heck a écrit : Let me address the last point first. I do not see why you think versioning makes more work. Why would you have to write three different layouts? To support every single version of moderncv? We don't do that now, as you said. Why would we have to do it

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 12/17/2012 04:57 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 16/12/2012 19:33, Richard Heck a écrit : Let me address the last point first. I do not see why you think versioning makes more work. Why would you have to write three different layouts? To support every single version of moderncv? We don't

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

Le 17/12/2012 16:32, Richard Heck a écrit : How does LaTeX figure out the version, if we include that in \usepackage? Or is that the worry, that not all classes do it the same way? I was kind of thinking that we'd actually make this check in chkconfig.ltx. Perhaps using something like:

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 12/13/2012 05:45 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Dear colleagues, sorry for the delay, but my spare time is currently very limited. Before I will comment on the different posts in the old thread I want to summarize what we are discussing about because the old thread is a mixture of different topics

Re: Restart layout update discussion; was: Re: [patch] final layout patches for branch

On 12/13/2012 05:45 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Dear colleagues, sorry for the delay, but my spare time is currently very limited. Before I will comment on the different posts in the old thread I want to summarize what we are discussing about because the old thread is a mixture of different topics