Le 14/06/2017 à 20:08, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
OK. So we are stuck. I want to come to a decision before beta1. I'm not
sure what to suggest. I get the feeling that we've had enough discussion
and further discussion will not lead to a unanimous agreement. In this
case, I suppose we need to
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:48:13PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 06/14/2017 02:08 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:30:03PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> >> On 2017-06-09, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >>
> >>> [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --]
> >>> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:59:00AM +0200, Guillaume MM wrote:
>
> Enrico, I also have to criticise this sort of comment of yours. I am
> sorry to say that to me it looks disconnected with the understanding of
> the problem at the time and gratuitous.
Guillame, I have also to criticize this
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:59:00AM +0200, Guillaume MM wrote:
> Le 03/06/2017 à 01:08, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 07:30:34PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> > >
> > > Note that the "ERT patch" is only for *stable*, i.e. 2.2.x.
> > > For 2.2, ERT is the only way to
Le 03/06/2017 à 01:08, Enrico Forestieri a écrit :
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 07:30:34PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
Note that the "ERT patch" is only for *stable*, i.e. 2.2.x.
For 2.2, ERT is the only way to ensure full backwards compatibility.
A solution should have been thought and done
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:29:35PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:06:28PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Richard Heck wrote:
> > > We defintely need a summary of what the issue is.
> >
> > Yes, if both parties could provide summary from their POV that would be
> >
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 03:06:28PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
> > We defintely need a summary of what the issue is.
>
> Yes, if both parties could provide summary from their POV that would be
> helpful.
I don't know who are the parties, but if something has to be improved
I
Richard Heck wrote:
> We defintely need a summary of what the issue is.
Yes, if both parties could provide summary from their POV that would be helpful.
Pavel
On 06/14/2017 02:08 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:30:03PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2017-06-09, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>
>>> [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --]
>>> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 07:41:21AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
I don't have a preference
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:30:03PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-06-09, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
> > [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --]
>
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 07:41:21AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>
> >> I don't have a preference regarding the two alternative patches for
On 2017-06-09, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --]
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 07:41:21AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> I don't have a preference regarding the two alternative patches for stable.
> And what is the status of this discussion for 2.3.0? Did we come to an
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 07:41:21AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> I don't have a preference regarding the two alternative patches for stable.
And what is the status of this discussion for 2.3.0? Did we come to an
agreement on what should be done?
Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2017-06-03, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --]
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:08:07AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 07:30:34PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> >
>> > Note that the "ERT patch" is only for *stable*, i.e. 2.2.x.
>> > For
On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:08:07AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 07:30:34PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> >
> > Note that the "ERT patch" is only for *stable*, i.e. 2.2.x.
> > For 2.2, ERT is the only way to ensure full backwards compatibility.
>
> A solution should
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 07:30:34PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>
> Note that the "ERT patch" is only for *stable*, i.e. 2.2.x.
> For 2.2, ERT is the only way to ensure full backwards compatibility.
A solution should have been thought and done before 2.2.0 was released.
Now it's too late.
--
On 2017-06-01, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:12:53PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2017-05-26, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 09:12:27AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> >> Günter has written a lot about what to do regarding em- and en-dashes.
>>
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:12:53PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2017-05-26, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 09:12:27AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >> Günter has written a lot about what to do regarding em- and en-dashes.
> >> For more information, see:
>
> >>
On 2017-05-26, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 09:12:27AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> Günter has written a lot about what to do regarding em- and en-dashes.
>> For more information, see:
>> http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10543
>> Does anyone else have feedback on what
18 matches
Mail list logo
