Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:30:37PM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > Dear Scott, > > thank you for the fast answer. Sorry to bother you again. It is not a bother. I appreciate your persistence and all of the time that you have spent on this issue. > This is the minimum requirement for *reversion*

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Dear Scott, thank you for the fast answer. Sorry to bother you again. On 2017-10-27, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:38:32AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: ... >> > Indeed, our "Development" manual covers this: >> > While the conversion routine is required to produce a

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:38:32AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > Actually, the patch deals with both, forward conversion and backward > conversion. In tend to summarize both conversions under the tag "backwards > compatibility". I see, thanks for the correction. > > Indeed, our "Development"

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Dear Scott, On 2017-10-25, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 08:44:07AM +, Enrico Forestieri wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 09:36:56PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: >> > On 10/22/2017 06:19 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:37:06AM +, Jürgen

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 09:12:57PM +, Richard Heck wrote: > On 10/26/2017 02:48 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:05:46PM +, Richard Heck wrote: > >> The actual problem is the deletion of ZWSP characters, which 72a488d7 > >> said was needed "so that they don't

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On 10/26/2017 02:48 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:05:46PM +, Richard Heck wrote: >> The actual problem is the deletion of ZWSP characters, which 72a488d7 >> said was needed "so that they don't accumulate". The concern here, I take >> it, is that reverting to a

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:05:46PM +, Richard Heck wrote: > On 10/24/2017 01:29 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 08:44:07AM +, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 09:36:56PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > >>> On 10/22/2017 06:19 PM, Scott Kostyshak

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On 10/24/2017 01:29 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 08:44:07AM +, Enrico Forestieri wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 09:36:56PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: >>> On 10/22/2017 06:19 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:37:06AM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 08:44:07AM +, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 09:36:56PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > > On 10/22/2017 06:19 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:37:06AM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > > > > >> Also, I think we should

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On 2017-10-23, Richard Heck wrote: > On 10/22/2017 06:19 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:37:06AM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: >>> Also, I think we should consider Günter's lyx2lyx patch [1], but I >>> didn't have time to thoroughly review it myself. >> Will anyone

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 08:44:07AM +, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 09:36:56PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > > On 10/22/2017 06:19 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:37:06AM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > > > > >> Also, I think we should

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 09:36:56PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 10/22/2017 06:19 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:37:06AM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > > >> Also, I think we should consider Günter's lyx2lyx patch [1], but I > >> didn't have time to thoroughly

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On 10/22/2017 06:19 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:37:06AM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > >> Also, I think we should consider Günter's lyx2lyx patch [1], but I >> didn't have time to thoroughly review it myself. > Will anyone have time to take a look at the patch by

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:37:06AM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Also, I think we should consider Günter's lyx2lyx patch [1], but I > didn't have time to thoroughly review it myself. Will anyone have time to take a look at the patch by Wednesday? Scott > > Jürgen > > [1]

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

2017-10-18 14:10 GMT+02:00 Guenter Milde : > However, lyx 2.3 is not going back to 2.1 and previous. The mess is caused > by merging literal and ligature dashes to one representation. > This damage is done and will not be undone with a new change of default > behaviour. > For

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On 2017-10-18, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: quoted-printable --] > 2017-10-17 20:30 GMT+02:00 Guenter Milde: >> The current default in 2.3 differs from the 2.2 behaviour (use literal >> dashes). Users upgrading to 2.3 will therefore experience a changed >>

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

2017-10-17 20:30 GMT+02:00 Guenter Milde: > The current default in 2.3 differs from the 2.2 behaviour (use literal > dashes). Users upgrading to 2.3 will therefore experience a changed > typesetting behaviour with new documents unless they change the default: > And LyX 2.2 differed from LyX 2.1

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On 2017-10-14, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 01:30 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: >> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:56:12AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: >> > On 2017-10-07, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> > >> > > Any other important issues to consider before releasing rc1? >> >

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On 2017-10-14, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:56:12AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: >> The current default behaviour for dash export is a regression on >> changeset 798ad9755a1ff43a06d2b from 16.06.2007 ... > Note that from what I understand, this is a different topic than

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:35:21AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 15.10.2017, 10:52 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > I have done some more experiments and I think I found a more > > reasonable > > explanation of what I still think might be a compiler bug. Seemingly, > >

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Am Sonntag, den 15.10.2017, 10:52 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > I have done some more experiments and I think I found a more > reasonable > explanation of what I still think might be a compiler bug. Seemingly, > when > the first parameter passed to regex_match() is afterward changed, the >

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 09:43:50PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > This is with gcc 6.4.0. Maybe other versions don't have the issue. > > If you disable compiler optimization is the bug still there? P Yes, it does not seem to depend on the optimization level. --

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 03:39:47PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 10/14/2017 01:51 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 07:30:29PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > >> Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 19:15 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > >>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:51:31PM

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Enrico Forestieri wrote: > This is with gcc 6.4.0. Maybe other versions don't have the issue. If you disable compiler optimization is the bug still there? P

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On 10/14/2017 01:51 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 07:30:29PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: >> Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 19:15 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: >>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: What happens if you do

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 07:30:29PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 19:15 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > > > > > What happens if you do > > > > > > LYXERR0("test 1: " << sub.str(5)); > > >

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 19:15 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > > > What happens if you do > > > > LYXERR0("test 1: " << sub.str(5)); > > string const test = sub.str(5); > > LYXERR0("test 2: " << test); > > The result

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > What happens if you do > > LYXERR0("test 1: " << sub.str(5)); > string const test = sub.str(5); > LYXERR0("test 2: " << test); The result is: BiblioInfo.cpp (252): test 1: %surname% BiblioInfo.cpp (254): test 2: %surname%

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 18:14 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 05:06:14PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > > > I'd be interested in the output of the attached debug code. > > Here you go (actually, I get this twice): > > BiblioInfo.cpp (253): match 0: %prename%

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 05:06:14PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > I'd be interested in the output of the attached debug code. Here you go (actually, I get this twice): BiblioInfo.cpp (253): match 0: %prename% {%prefix%[[%prefix% ]]}%surname% BiblioInfo.cpp (253): match 1: %prename%

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 16:09 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > I think something fishy is occurring here. When removing the debug > patch > it doesn't work anymore, with or without the static declaration. > I am really confused. I'd be interested in the output of the attached debug code.

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 02:25:45PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 13:46 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:56:11PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > > Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 12:26 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > > > However,

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 13:46 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:56:11PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 12:26 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > > However, after removing the static declaration for the regexes in > > >

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:56:11PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 12:26 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > However, after removing the static declaration for the regexes in > > constructName() [...] everything is fine. I don't know why the static > > declaration

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 12:26 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > However, after removing the static declaration for the regexes in > constructName() [...] everything is fine. I don't know why the static > declaration causes the failure. Hm. What happens if you use "static lyx::regex" instead

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 08:17:24AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Freitag, den 13.10.2017, 22:59 -0400 schrieb Richard Heck: > > You might also try putting some debugging code into > > BibTeXInfo::expandFormat. Try putting: > > LYXERR0(fmt); LYXERR0(ret); > > at the beginning of the

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:40:20PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:06:48PM +, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > I tried to debug this, but when using the debugger the replacements > > are always correct. So, I think that this is some kind of threading > > issue and

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Am Samstag, den 14.10.2017, 01:30 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:56:12AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > > On 2017-10-07, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > > Any other important issues to consider before releasing rc1? > > > > The current default behaviour for dash export

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Am Freitag, den 13.10.2017, 22:59 -0400 schrieb Richard Heck: > You might also try putting some debugging code into > BibTeXInfo::expandFormat. Try putting: > LYXERR0(fmt); LYXERR0(ret); > at the beginning of the while loop. The first is the format string > we're > processing; the latter is

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:56:12AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2017-10-07, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > Any other important issues to consider before releasing rc1? > > The current default behaviour for dash export is a regression on > changeset 798ad9755a1ff43a06d2b from 16.06.2007 > >

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On 10/13/2017 06:06 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:42:12PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: >> Am Freitag, den 13.10.2017, 15:27 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: (obviously, the placeholder is supposed to read %surname, not %surnamP) >>> This is weird. I see

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:06:48PM +, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > I tried to debug this, but when using the debugger the replacements > are always correct. So, I think that this is some kind of threading > issue and the observed relation to the TeX engine is not for real. That sounds like a

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:42:12PM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Freitag, den 13.10.2017, 15:27 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > > > > (obviously, the placeholder is supposed to read %surname, not > > > %surnamP) > > > > This is weird. I see this behavior when using MiKTeX as the TeX

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Am Freitag, den 13.10.2017, 15:27 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > No. BTW, the citeengine files seems to be Format 63, still. Thanks. I'll bump this. > > > (obviously, the placeholder is supposed to read %surname, not > > %surnamP) > > This is weird. I see this behavior when using MiKTeX as

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:19:18AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Freitag, den 13.10.2017, 10:52 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 01:25:25AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > > > Any other important issues to consider before releasing rc1? > > > > The

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Am Freitag, den 13.10.2017, 10:52 +0200 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 01:25:25AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > Any other important issues to consider before releasing rc1? > > The citation dialog has an issue when using bibtex. All authors' > surnames > are shown

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 01:25:25AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > Any other important issues to consider before releasing rc1? The citation dialog has an issue when using bibtex. All authors' surnames are shown as the string "%surnamP" (see attached image). Everything seems fine when using

Re: Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

On 2017-10-07, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > Any other important issues to consider before releasing rc1? The current default behaviour for dash export is a regression on changeset 798ad9755a1ff43a06d2b from 16.06.2007 unicodesymbols: use commands for the dashes for consistency reasons and to

Update on the 2.3.0rc1 situation

Dear all, Here is an update on the rc1 situation. The big issue that was fixed recently is being able to convert SVG files if ImageMagick is not available on the system (especially important on Mac). This was important so that users could compile the manuals. So far we are planning to go