Does the AEA.lyx template compile for you?

[Scott Kostyshak]

The file compiles for me before a860d18b but not after. I wonder if
it's a difference of TeX Live 2013 vs. MikTeX, or perhaps something
specific to my installation.

Scott

Re: Tarballs for LyX 2.1.0 are on FTP

[Liviu Andronic]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn v...@lyx.org wrote:
 Hi all,

 The tarballs for LyX 2.1.0 can be found at

Ubuntu packages are now available on the PPA:
https://launchpad.net/~lyx-devel/+archive/release

Liviu


 ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/devel/lyx-2.1/lyx-2.1.0/

 As usual I'll wait for the packagers to provide the binaries before
 announcing the release.

 Vincent



-- 
Do you know how to read?
http://www.alienetworks.com/srtest.cfm
http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/applications/xfce4-dict#speed-reader
Do you know how to write?
http://garbl.home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/e.htm#e-mail

Is master open?

[Scott Kostyshak]

I just committed to master because I thought it was open but I looked
for a master is open email and did not find it. Did I make a
mistake?

Scott

Re: Is master open?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 21/04/2014 16:34, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

I just committed to master because I thought it was open but I looked
for a master is open email and did not find it. Did I make a
mistake?


I did that too, and began to wonder what is supposed to happen wrt 
2.2-staging. Who is going to cherry-pick what is there? When? In the 
meantime, shall we commit to 2.2-staging or master?


I see that master is version 2.2.0dev, so it is presumably open.

JMarc

Re: Is master open?

[Richard Heck]

On 04/21/2014 10:38 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

Le 21/04/2014 16:34, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

I just committed to master because I thought it was open but I looked
for a master is open email and did not find it. Did I make a
mistake?


I did that too, and began to wonder what is supposed to happen wrt 
2.2-staging. Who is going to cherry-pick what is there? When? In the 
meantime, shall we commit to 2.2-staging or master?


I see that master is version 2.2.0dev, so it is presumably open.


I took it still to be closed, until 2.2-staging had been merged. I have 
a merged branch on my machine,

with the two small conflicts fixed. Shall I push it?

Richard

Re: Is master open?

[Kornel Benko]

Am Montag, 21. April 2014 um 11:01:39, schrieb Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org
 On 04/21/2014 10:38 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
  Le 21/04/2014 16:34, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
  I just committed to master because I thought it was open but I looked
  for a master is open email and did not find it. Did I make a
  mistake?
 
  I did that too, and began to wonder what is supposed to happen wrt 
  2.2-staging. Who is going to cherry-pick what is there? When? In the 
  meantime, shall we commit to 2.2-staging or master?
 
  I see that master is version 2.2.0dev, so it is presumably open.
 
 I took it still to be closed, until 2.2-staging had been merged. I have 
 a merged branch on my machine,
 with the two small conflicts fixed. Shall I push it?

+1

I mistakenly committed to master too ...

 Richard

Kornel

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Is master open?

[Richard Heck]

On 04/21/2014 11:05 AM, Kornel Benko wrote:


Am Montag, 21. April 2014 um 11:01:39, schrieb Richard Heck 
rgh...@lyx.org


 On 04/21/2014 10:38 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

  Le 21/04/2014 16:34, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

  I just committed to master because I thought it was open but I looked

  for a master is open email and did not find it. Did I make a

  mistake?

 

  I did that too, and began to wonder what is supposed to happen wrt

  2.2-staging. Who is going to cherry-pick what is there? When? In the

  meantime, shall we commit to 2.2-staging or master?

 

  I see that master is version 2.2.0dev, so it is presumably open.



 I took it still to be closed, until 2.2-staging had been merged. I have

 a merged branch on my machine,

 with the two small conflicts fixed. Shall I push it?

+1

I mistakenly committed to master too ...



Let me wait a bit and see if we hear from Vincent.

Richard

Master Is Open

[Richard Heck]

OK, I want ahead and merged 2.2-staging into master. Commit as you wish.

Should we delete 2.2-staging and 2.1-staging now to avoid confusion? Or 
just leave them?


Richard

Re: Master Is Open

[Pavel Sanda]

Richard Heck wrote:
 Should we delete 2.2-staging and 2.1-staging now to avoid confusion? Or 
 just leave them?

I would delete them. Pavel

Re: Master Is Open

[Kornel Benko]

Am Montag, 21. April 2014 um 12:14:48, schrieb Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org
 
 OK, I want ahead and merged 2.2-staging into master. Commit as you wish.
 
 Should we delete 2.2-staging and 2.1-staging now to avoid confusion? Or 
 just leave them?
 
 Richard

I vote for delete.

Kornel

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Master Is Open

[Stephan Witt]

Am 21.04.2014 um 18:14 schrieb Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org:

 
 OK, I want ahead and merged 2.2-staging into master. Commit as you wish.

Thank you.

 
 Should we delete 2.2-staging and 2.1-staging now to avoid confusion? Or just 
 leave them?

I vote for delete.

Stephan

 
 Richard
 

Re: 2.0.8 and 2.1.0 Release Date(s?)

[Stephan Witt]

Am 18.04.2014 um 08:57 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn v...@lyx.org:

 Richard Heck schreef op 18-4-2014 0:33:
 
 I now have all binaries for 2.0.8, and Stephan just emailed a link to the 
 OSX one for 2.1.0, so I take it we are just about good to go. How shall we 
 proceed here, to avoid confusion for people? Release the same day? One one 
 day and one the next? Or...?
 
 Richard
 
 
 Today it's Good Friday, and Monday is Eastermonday. So, I think I will 
 officially announce the release on Tuesday morning. This also gives us the 
 weekend to prepare some PR.
 
 Maybe we can announce the news on the website a bit more prominent than just 
 a small news heading. Also, we might consider preparing a announcement 
 leaflet or whatever.


Now I've made the packages for 2.1.0 for Mac OS X 10.5 too.
These are usable for users on legacy systems.
Some users may ask for it.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27842660/LyX-2.1.0%2Bqt4-i386-cocoa.dmg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27842660/LyX-2.1.0%2Bqt4-i386-cocoa.dmg.sig

Stephan

Re: Re: Master Is Open

[José Matos]

On Monday 21 April 2014 09:26:29 Pavel Sanda wrote:
 I would delete them. Pavel

FWIW I agree. +1 +) SCNR
-- 
José Abílio

Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

Hi all,
I suggest to update the python code used by lyx to support both python 
2 and python 3 with the same code.

For those who (did not) read the summit notes from Guido:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/147048

There is one point particularly that I noticed:
- The recommended and least painful way to develop for Python 2 and 3 is 
definitely to use a single source that runs under both without translation; we 
no longer recommend auto-generating Python 3 compatible source code using 2to3, 
for a variety of reasons. Several people attested that single-source has worked 
well for them; Mercurial is using the 2to3 approach but they're not too happy 
with it.

We have already a ticket opened for this:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9006

Also of notice for some of the points raised in the ticket regarding python 2.7 
support:
- We should make an effort to publicize that we're NOT sunsetting Python 2.7 
just yet; support will continue (hopefully with ample support from distro 
vendors), and someone should update PEP 373. (Unclear what the new EOL is but 
we should definitely rescind the currently published schedule.)

As you can see here:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/
The End Of Life date (EOL, sunset date) for Python 2.7 has been moved five 
years into the future, to 2020.

So IMHO I suggest code that is able to support both python 2 and python 3.

Before proceeding here there two related issues that we should discuss:

What is the minimum python 2 version that we will support?

What is the minimum python 3 version that we will support?

My suggestions are python 2.7 and python 3.3 as the minimal versions. Since I 
suggest to support both versions that means that you only need to have one of 
them available.

Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
code works as intended on both versions.

I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June FWIW) 
but I would like to start the discussion here.

Regards,
-- 
José Abílio

Re: [LyX-Mentors-GSoC-2013] Draft of welcome message to accepted GSOC students

[stefano franchi]

Welcome to LyX message sent to accepted students.
Message to acceptable/rejected students to follow soon.


Cheers,

S.


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org wrote:

  On 04/21/2014 01:14 PM, stefano franchi wrote:

  Thanks Richard.

  But I am not sure what you mean by:


 On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org wrote:


 Captialize what follows.


  congratulations on your successful application to the Google's Summer
 of Code program and a hearty welcome to the LyX community from all of the
 developers.


  Do you mean:

 1.  I forgot to capitalize congratulations;


 Yes.

 rh




-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas AM University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org

Re: #7437: Assertion isDirectory() violated after importing '/a/' as plain text

[Vincent van Ravesteijn]

Abdelrazak Younes schreef op 19-4-2014 19:29:

On 19/04/2014 19:25, Richard Heck wrote:

On 04/19/2014 01:17 PM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:


If you want to remove yourself as owner of the other bugs, that is 
fairly easy to do via Batch Modify. Just select all the bugs you 
want to change and switch Owner to nobody.


Hum, what is  Batch Modify ?


When you do the query, you'll see toward the bottom of the page 
Batch Modify. It allows you to change a bunch of bugs all at once. 
You can check the bugs you want to modify in the returned list, or 
click the checkbox at the top to mark them all. You have to open the 
Batch Modify widget, then you can add various fields you want to 
change. This is how the bugs fixed in 2.0.8, for example, all get 
marked as FIXED. Obviously, you have to be careful what you change. 
This is not undoable.


Sorry but Batch Modify in my query page:

http://www.lyx.org/trac/query?owner=younesstatus=acceptedstatus=assignedstatus=fixedstatus=fixedinmasterstatus=fixedinstablestatus=newstatus=reopenedmax=200order=id 



Maybe this only shows if you are Trac Admin?

Abdel


Yes, you need to have extra priviliges. At the moment only the release 
managers do have these rights.


Vincent

Re: Is master open?

[Vincent van Ravesteijn]

Richard Heck schreef op 21-4-2014 17:36:

Let me wait a bit and see if we hear from Vincent.

Richard



I was working on it until something slightly more important came into my 
life.


Please proceed with what you think is right for the moment.

Vincent

Re: [LyX/2.2-staging] Do not store Languages objects in completion words lists

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

The warnings that remain after this patch are of two sorts:

* unused parameters in boost, like:

In file included from 
../../../../master/boost/boost/smart_ptr/make_shared_array.hpp:15:
../../../../master/boost/boost/smart_ptr/detail/make_array_helper.hpp:75:62: 
warning:

  unused parameter 'other' [-Wunused-parameter]
bool operator==(const make_array_helperT[], U other) const {
 ^

* problems with hidden overloaded virtual functions. I read about it, 
but I have to admit that I do not know what is the real way to shut this 
warning off.


../../master/src/mathed/InsetMath.h:181:15: warning: 
'lyx::InsetMath::write' hides overloaded virtual function 
[-Woverloaded-virtual]

virtual void write(WriteStream  os) const;
 ^
../../master/src/insets/Inset.h:455:15: note: hidden overloaded virtual 
function 'lyx::Inset::write' declared here: type mismatch at 1st 
parameter ('std::ostream ' (aka 'basic_ostreamchar, char_traitschar 
 ') vs 'lyx::WriteStream ')

virtual void write(std::ostream ) const {}
 ^

JMarc

Le 24/03/2014 14:19, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :

commit 8ac5f09c1783261018a107b54ce398733b8f97a4
Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes lasgout...@lyx.org
Date:   Fri Mar 21 12:24:47 2014 +0100

 Do not store Languages objects in completion words lists

 In the current code each paragraph contains a mapLanguage,
 WordList*, which means that it contains a full copy of the language
 object. Since these objects contain translation tables nowadays, this
 is a very bad idea.

 This patch simply replaces the Language key by a string.

 When loading the Userguide on linux/x86_64, the total memory
 consumption decreases from 36.27MB to 31.50MB.

Re: Is master open?

[Richard Heck]

On 04/21/2014 05:37 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:

Richard Heck schreef op 21-4-2014 17:36:

Let me wait a bit and see if we hear from Vincent.

Richard



I was working on it until something slightly more important came into 
my life.


Please proceed with what you think is right for the moment.


Fully understood.

Richard

Re: [LyX/2.2-staging] Do not store Languages objects in completion words lists

[Richard Heck]

On 04/21/2014 06:40 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

The warnings that remain after this patch are of two sorts:

* unused parameters in boost, like:

In file included from 
../../../../master/boost/boost/smart_ptr/make_shared_array.hpp:15:
../../../../master/boost/boost/smart_ptr/detail/make_array_helper.hpp:75:62: 
warning:

  unused parameter 'other' [-Wunused-parameter]
bool operator==(const make_array_helperT[], U other) 
const {


Not much we can do about that, is there?

* problems with hidden overloaded virtual functions. I read about it, 
but I have to admit that I do not know what is the real way to shut 
this warning off.


../../master/src/mathed/InsetMath.h:181:15: warning: 
'lyx::InsetMath::write' hides overloaded virtual function 
[-Woverloaded-virtual]

virtual void write(WriteStream  os) const;
 ^
../../master/src/insets/Inset.h:455:15: note: hidden overloaded 
virtual function 'lyx::Inset::write' declared here: type mismatch at 
1st parameter ('std::ostream ' (aka 'basic_ostreamchar, 
char_traitschar  ') vs 'lyx::WriteStream ')

virtual void write(std::ostream ) const {}
 ^


This looks a bit worrying, as if it invites confusion between these 
functions. Can we rename one of them\?


Richard

Re: Master Is Open

[Richard Heck]

On 04/21/2014 12:14 PM, Richard Heck wrote:


Should we delete 2.2-staging and 2.1-staging now to avoid confusion? 
Or just leave them?


The ayes had it, and this has been done.

Richard

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Pavel Sanda]

José Matos wrote:
 Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
 code works as intended on both versions.
 
 I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June FWIW) 
 but I would like to start the discussion here.

The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would think twice 
whether we should simply switch just to python 3.
(I hope x in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)

Pavel

Does the AEA.lyx template compile for you?

[Scott Kostyshak]

The file compiles for me before a860d18b but not after. I wonder if
it's a difference of TeX Live 2013 vs. MikTeX, or perhaps something
specific to my installation.

Scott

Re: Tarballs for LyX 2.1.0 are on FTP

[Liviu Andronic]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The tarballs for LyX 2.1.0 can be found at
>
Ubuntu packages are now available on the PPA:
https://launchpad.net/~lyx-devel/+archive/release

Liviu


> ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/devel/lyx-2.1/lyx-2.1.0/
>
> As usual I'll wait for the packagers to provide the binaries before
> announcing the release.
>
> Vincent



-- 
Do you know how to read?
http://www.alienetworks.com/srtest.cfm
http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/applications/xfce4-dict#speed-reader
Do you know how to write?
http://garbl.home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/e.htm#e-mail

Is master open?

[Scott Kostyshak]

I just committed to master because I thought it was open but I looked
for a "master is open" email and did not find it. Did I make a
mistake?

Scott

Re: Is master open?

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 21/04/2014 16:34, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

I just committed to master because I thought it was open but I looked
for a "master is open" email and did not find it. Did I make a
mistake?


I did that too, and began to wonder what is supposed to happen wrt 
2.2-staging. Who is going to cherry-pick what is there? When? In the 
meantime, shall we commit to 2.2-staging or master?


I see that master is version 2.2.0dev, so it is presumably open.

JMarc

Re: Is master open?

[Richard Heck]

On 04/21/2014 10:38 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

Le 21/04/2014 16:34, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

I just committed to master because I thought it was open but I looked
for a "master is open" email and did not find it. Did I make a
mistake?


I did that too, and began to wonder what is supposed to happen wrt 
2.2-staging. Who is going to cherry-pick what is there? When? In the 
meantime, shall we commit to 2.2-staging or master?


I see that master is version 2.2.0dev, so it is presumably open.


I took it still to be closed, until 2.2-staging had been merged. I have 
a merged branch on my machine,

with the two small conflicts fixed. Shall I push it?

Richard

Re: Is master open?

[Kornel Benko]

Am Montag, 21. April 2014 um 11:01:39, schrieb Richard Heck 
> On 04/21/2014 10:38 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 21/04/2014 16:34, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >> I just committed to master because I thought it was open but I looked
> >> for a "master is open" email and did not find it. Did I make a
> >> mistake?
> >
> > I did that too, and began to wonder what is supposed to happen wrt 
> > 2.2-staging. Who is going to cherry-pick what is there? When? In the 
> > meantime, shall we commit to 2.2-staging or master?
> >
> > I see that master is version 2.2.0dev, so it is presumably open.
> 
> I took it still to be closed, until 2.2-staging had been merged. I have 
> a merged branch on my machine,
> with the two small conflicts fixed. Shall I push it?

+1

I mistakenly committed to master too ...

> Richard

Kornel

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Is master open?

[Richard Heck]

On 04/21/2014 11:05 AM, Kornel Benko wrote:


Am Montag, 21. April 2014 um 11:01:39, schrieb Richard Heck 



> On 04/21/2014 10:38 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

> > Le 21/04/2014 16:34, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

> >> I just committed to master because I thought it was open but I looked

> >> for a "master is open" email and did not find it. Did I make a

> >> mistake?

> >

> > I did that too, and began to wonder what is supposed to happen wrt

> > 2.2-staging. Who is going to cherry-pick what is there? When? In the

> > meantime, shall we commit to 2.2-staging or master?

> >

> > I see that master is version 2.2.0dev, so it is presumably open.

>

> I took it still to be closed, until 2.2-staging had been merged. I have

> a merged branch on my machine,

> with the two small conflicts fixed. Shall I push it?

+1

I mistakenly committed to master too ...



Let me wait a bit and see if we hear from Vincent.

Richard

Master Is Open

[Richard Heck]

OK, I want ahead and merged 2.2-staging into master. Commit as you wish.

Should we delete 2.2-staging and 2.1-staging now to avoid confusion? Or 
just leave them?


Richard

Re: Master Is Open

[Pavel Sanda]

Richard Heck wrote:
> Should we delete 2.2-staging and 2.1-staging now to avoid confusion? Or 
> just leave them?

I would delete them. Pavel

Re: Master Is Open

[Kornel Benko]

Am Montag, 21. April 2014 um 12:14:48, schrieb Richard Heck 
> 
> OK, I want ahead and merged 2.2-staging into master. Commit as you wish.
> 
> Should we delete 2.2-staging and 2.1-staging now to avoid confusion? Or 
> just leave them?
> 
> Richard

I vote for delete.

Kornel

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Master Is Open

[Stephan Witt]

Am 21.04.2014 um 18:14 schrieb Richard Heck :

> 
> OK, I want ahead and merged 2.2-staging into master. Commit as you wish.

Thank you.

> 
> Should we delete 2.2-staging and 2.1-staging now to avoid confusion? Or just 
> leave them?

I vote for delete.

Stephan

> 
> Richard
> 

Re: 2.0.8 and 2.1.0 Release Date(s?)

[Stephan Witt]

Am 18.04.2014 um 08:57 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn :

> Richard Heck schreef op 18-4-2014 0:33:
>> 
>> I now have all binaries for 2.0.8, and Stephan just emailed a link to the 
>> OSX one for 2.1.0, so I take it we are just about good to go. How shall we 
>> proceed here, to avoid confusion for people? Release the same day? One one 
>> day and one the next? Or...?
>> 
>> Richard
>> 
> 
> Today it's Good Friday, and Monday is Eastermonday. So, I think I will 
> officially announce the release on Tuesday morning. This also gives us the 
> weekend to prepare some PR.
> 
> Maybe we can announce the news on the website a bit more prominent than just 
> a small news heading. Also, we might consider preparing a announcement 
> leaflet or whatever.


Now I've made the packages for 2.1.0 for Mac OS X 10.5 too.
These are usable for users on legacy systems.
Some users may ask for it.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27842660/LyX-2.1.0%2Bqt4-i386-cocoa.dmg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27842660/LyX-2.1.0%2Bqt4-i386-cocoa.dmg.sig

Stephan

Re: Re: Master Is Open

[José Matos]

On Monday 21 April 2014 09:26:29 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> I would delete them. Pavel

FWIW I agree. +1 +) SCNR
-- 
José Abílio

Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[José Matos]

Hi all,
I suggest to update the python code used by lyx to support both python 
2 and python 3 with the same code.

For those who (did not) read the summit notes from Guido:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/147048

There is one point particularly that I noticed:
"- The recommended and least painful way to develop for Python 2 and 3 is 
definitely to use a single source that runs under both without translation; we 
no longer recommend auto-generating Python 3 compatible source code using 2to3, 
for a variety of reasons. Several people attested that single-source has worked 
well for them; Mercurial is using the 2to3 approach but they're not too happy 
with it."

We have already a ticket opened for this:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9006

Also of notice for some of the points raised in the ticket regarding python 2.7 
support:
"- We should make an effort to publicize that we're NOT sunsetting Python 2.7 
just yet; support will continue (hopefully with ample support from distro 
vendors), and someone should update PEP 373. (Unclear what the new EOL is but 
we should definitely rescind the currently published schedule.)"

As you can see here:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/
"The End Of Life date (EOL, sunset date) for Python 2.7 has been moved five 
years into the future, to 2020."

So IMHO I suggest code that is able to support both python 2 and python 3.

Before proceeding here there two related issues that we should discuss:

What is the minimum python 2 version that we will support?

What is the minimum python 3 version that we will support?

My suggestions are python 2.7 and python 3.3 as the minimal versions. Since I 
suggest to support both versions that means that you only need to have one of 
them available.

Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
code works as intended on both versions.

I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June FWIW) 
but I would like to start the discussion here.

Regards,
-- 
José Abílio

Re: [LyX-Mentors-GSoC-2013] Draft of welcome message to accepted GSOC students

[stefano franchi]

Welcome to LyX message sent to accepted students.
Message to acceptable/rejected students to follow soon.


Cheers,

S.


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Richard Heck  wrote:

>  On 04/21/2014 01:14 PM, stefano franchi wrote:
>
>  Thanks Richard.
>
>  But I am not sure what you mean by:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Richard Heck  wrote:
>
>>
>> Captialize what follows.
>>
>>
>>  congratulations on your successful application to the Google's Summer
>> of Code program and a hearty welcome to the LyX community from all of the
>> developers.
>>
>>
>  Do you mean:
>
> 1.  I forgot to capitalize "congratulations";
>
>
> Yes.
>
> rh
>
>


-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas A University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org

Re: #7437: Assertion isDirectory() violated after importing '/a/' as plain text

[Vincent van Ravesteijn]

Abdelrazak Younes schreef op 19-4-2014 19:29:

On 19/04/2014 19:25, Richard Heck wrote:

On 04/19/2014 01:17 PM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:


If you want to remove yourself as owner of the other bugs, that is 
fairly easy to do via Batch Modify. Just select all the bugs you 
want to change and switch "Owner" to nobody.


Hum, what is " Batch Modify" ?


When you do the query, you'll see toward the bottom of the page 
"Batch Modify". It allows you to change a bunch of bugs all at once. 
You can check the bugs you want to modify in the returned list, or 
click the checkbox at the top to mark them all. You have to open the 
Batch Modify widget, then you can add various fields you want to 
change. This is how the bugs fixed in 2.0.8, for example, all get 
marked as FIXED. Obviously, you have to be careful what you change. 
This is not undoable.


Sorry but "Batch Modify" in my query page:

http://www.lyx.org/trac/query?owner=younes=accepted=assigned=fixed=fixedinmaster=fixedinstable=new=reopened=200=id 



Maybe this only shows if you are Trac Admin?

Abdel


Yes, you need to have extra priviliges. At the moment only the release 
managers do have these rights.


Vincent

Re: Is master open?

[Vincent van Ravesteijn]

Richard Heck schreef op 21-4-2014 17:36:

Let me wait a bit and see if we hear from Vincent.

Richard



I was working on it until something slightly more important came into my 
life.


Please proceed with what you think is right for the moment.

Vincent

Re: [LyX/2.2-staging] Do not store Languages objects in completion words lists

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

The warnings that remain after this patch are of two sorts:

* unused parameters in boost, like:

In file included from 
../../../../master/boost/boost/smart_ptr/make_shared_array.hpp:15:
../../../../master/boost/boost/smart_ptr/detail/make_array_helper.hpp:75:62: 
warning:

  unused parameter 'other' [-Wunused-parameter]
bool operator==(const make_array_helper& other) const {
 ^

* problems with hidden overloaded virtual functions. I read about it, 
but I have to admit that I do not know what is the real way to shut this 
warning off.


../../master/src/mathed/InsetMath.h:181:15: warning: 
'lyx::InsetMath::write' hides overloaded virtual function 
[-Woverloaded-virtual]

virtual void write(WriteStream & os) const;
 ^
../../master/src/insets/Inset.h:455:15: note: hidden overloaded virtual 
function 'lyx::Inset::write' declared here: type mismatch at 1st 
parameter ('std::ostream &' (aka 'basic_ostream &') vs 'lyx::WriteStream &')

virtual void write(std::ostream &) const {}
 ^

JMarc

Le 24/03/2014 14:19, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :

commit 8ac5f09c1783261018a107b54ce398733b8f97a4
Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes 
Date:   Fri Mar 21 12:24:47 2014 +0100

 Do not store Languages objects in completion words lists

 In the current code each paragraph contains a map, which means that it contains a full copy of the language
 object. Since these objects contain translation tables nowadays, this
 is a very bad idea.

 This patch simply replaces the Language key by a string.

 When loading the Userguide on linux/x86_64, the total memory
 consumption decreases from 36.27MB to 31.50MB.

Re: Is master open?

[Richard Heck]

On 04/21/2014 05:37 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:

Richard Heck schreef op 21-4-2014 17:36:

Let me wait a bit and see if we hear from Vincent.

Richard



I was working on it until something slightly more important came into 
my life.


Please proceed with what you think is right for the moment.


Fully understood.

Richard

Re: [LyX/2.2-staging] Do not store Languages objects in completion words lists

[Richard Heck]

On 04/21/2014 06:40 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

The warnings that remain after this patch are of two sorts:

* unused parameters in boost, like:

In file included from 
../../../../master/boost/boost/smart_ptr/make_shared_array.hpp:15:
../../../../master/boost/boost/smart_ptr/detail/make_array_helper.hpp:75:62: 
warning:

  unused parameter 'other' [-Wunused-parameter]
bool operator==(const make_array_helper& other) 
const {


Not much we can do about that, is there?

* problems with hidden overloaded virtual functions. I read about it, 
but I have to admit that I do not know what is the real way to shut 
this warning off.


../../master/src/mathed/InsetMath.h:181:15: warning: 
'lyx::InsetMath::write' hides overloaded virtual function 
[-Woverloaded-virtual]

virtual void write(WriteStream & os) const;
 ^
../../master/src/insets/Inset.h:455:15: note: hidden overloaded 
virtual function 'lyx::Inset::write' declared here: type mismatch at 
1st parameter ('std::ostream &' (aka 'basic_ostream &') vs 'lyx::WriteStream &')

virtual void write(std::ostream &) const {}
 ^


This looks a bit worrying, as if it invites confusion between these 
functions. Can we rename one of them\?


Richard

Re: Master Is Open

[Richard Heck]

On 04/21/2014 12:14 PM, Richard Heck wrote:


Should we delete 2.2-staging and 2.1-staging now to avoid confusion? 
Or just leave them?


The ayes had it, and this has been done.

Richard

Re: Plans for python support on lyx-2.2

[Pavel Sanda]

José Matos wrote:
> Before proceeding with the changes we should add tests to guarantee that the 
> code works as intended on both versions.
> 
> I do not intend to work on this until the end of the semester (mid June FWIW) 
> but I would like to start the discussion here.

The more versions supported the bigger maintenance burden. I would think twice 
whether we should simply switch just to python 3.
(I hope x in 3.x doesn't matter much, right?)

Pavel