Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> additionally whether it would
> make sense to turn this option on by default when using
> --enable-build-type=pre (autotools) and -DLYX_RELEASE=OFF (CMake).
I don't think this is smart, imagine you bisect and have to deal
with one layer of "errors" above it. Pavel
Le 10/02/2018 à 23:48, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 09:17:04PM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
However warnings could go to standard error,
I did not check, but in a quick look we write errors with logger.error()
and I assume that goes to standard error.
and this cou
Am Sonntag, 11. Februar 2018 19:53:15 CET schrieb Iñaki Larrañaga Murgoitio
:
> Ouch!! Sorry, I forget to attach it!!
>
> Here you are!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dooteo
>
> > On 11 Feb 2018, at 19:32, Kornel Benko wrote:
> >
> > Am Sonntag, 11. Februar 2018 18:12:25 CET schrieb Iñaki Larrañaga
> > Mur
Le 10/02/2018 à 22:24, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
I can propose something simple on Monday: remove from GUI (like we do in
Linux) and always act as if the pref is off.
Here is what I had in mind. I discovered that the checkbox was not
hidden but disabled on Linux. I added code to hide it a
Le 10/02/2018 à 20:28, Joel Kulesza a écrit :
The only comment I have is that a crash may be causable if the
preference is ignored rather than disabled (see
https://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg203649.html).
Disabling the checkbox removes the ability to reproduce.
Otherwis
Le 10/02/2018 à 23:49, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
The only other regression to my knowledge that is pending is a minor
issue in LyX's painting:
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=20180210042849.k6trww2rmruj4jrq%40steph
There is a patch pending, and we just need to decide what is be
Le 10/02/2018 à 04:04, Richard Heck a écrit :
Yes, so that is the one JMarc guessed, though the real culprit is
e7827264e7e.
I would guess that the simple layout solution originally proposed is
correct, then. This commit just removed special handling for chapters,
so what's happening now is kind
Le 12/02/2018 à 11:18, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Le 10/02/2018 à 22:24, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
I can propose something simple on Monday: remove from GUI (like we do
in Linux) and always act as if the pref is off.
Here is what I had in mind. I discovered that the checkbox was not
Le 12/02/2018 à 11:32, jpc a écrit :
commit 92adecb6e04024422930e7f7b60af1149d15c669
Author: jpc
Date: Mon Feb 12 11:30:18 2018 +0100
Remove sections 6.7 and 6.4 from Additional manual (obsolete
classes egs and aguplus)
Edit LaTeXConfig.lyx accordingly
Mov
Le 12/02/2018 à 11:48, Jean-Pierre Chrétien a écrit :
Le 12/02/2018 à 11:32, jpc a écrit :
commit 92adecb6e04024422930e7f7b60af1149d15c669
Author: jpc
Date: Mon Feb 12 11:30:18 2018 +0100
Remove sections 6.7 and 6.4 from Additional manual
(obsolete classes egs and aguplus)
Le 12/02/2018 à 14:38, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
commit 1dba36c7cec6aeec2576e7a99e2967e867076a01
Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Date: Wed Feb 7 15:35:46 2018 +0100
Implement buffer-anonymize more efficiently
The work is done now in Paragraph::anonymize().
Move th
Le 11/02/2018 à 21:59, Richard Heck a écrit :
On 02/10/2018 01:51 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
What is your feeling on how stable our 2.3.x branch currently is? I have the
feeling that it is quite stable and that we should now make plans for the next
step in the release process. I propose to mak
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Another data point: to have a chance to get LyX 2.3.0 in ubuntu 18/04 LTS,
> we will need it to be in debian before March 1st. I do not know how quick
> the debian maintainers will be to package 2.3.0 there (they have a life too
> ;), so it is our interest to get th
Le 12/02/2018 à 16:23, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Another data point: to have a chance to get LyX 2.3.0 in ubuntu 18/04 LTS,
we will need it to be in debian before March 1st. I do not know how quick
the debian maintainers will be to package 2.3.0 there (they have a life to
Am Montag, den 12.02.2018, 17:06 +0100 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
> commit 24fd7d2bac4db276992de1f736ad3a3ecc1647b8
> Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> Date: Mon Feb 12 17:06:19 2018 +0100
>
> Remove template AGUTeX.lyx from Makefile
Note that there is an obsolete/ section in the Makefile.
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 12/02/2018 ?? 16:23, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
>> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>> Another data point: to have a chance to get LyX 2.3.0 in ubuntu 18/04 LTS,
>>> we will need it to be in debian before March 1st. I do not know how quick
>>> the debian maintainers will be
Le 12/02/2018 à 17:14, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
I quickly checked whether we know the current maintainer from the list
and this log showed as one of the changes between 2.2.3-5 x 2.2.3-5:
...
Revert "Use Python 3 instead of 2", introduced in 2.2.3-3. The support of
Python 3 is still too fragile and
Am Sonntag, den 11.02.2018, 19:53 +0100 schrieb Iñaki Larrañaga
Murgoitio:
> Ouch!! Sorry, I forget to attach it!!
>
> Here you are!
Many thanks, I committed it.
Note that some new strings went in meanwhile, in case you have some
more spare minutes:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/export/ab2bd296296b782
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 12/02/2018 ?? 17:14, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
>> I do not think that any package maintainer in his senses will ever push 2.3
>> directly to testing when issues like this are involved :)
>
> You mean that they are more careful than us ?
>
> But this patch was not ours,
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:24:53AM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I propose to keep the faulty superscript for now and take some time to
> determine a satisfactory solution.
Fine with me. I'll update the main thread on this issue, and take this
off my 2.3.0 list unless there is disagreement
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:28:49AM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Whatever Enrico and JMarc decide regarding this for 2.3.0 is fine for
> me.
Enrico, JMarc proposed [1] the following:
I propose to keep the faulty superscript for now and take some time to
determine a satisfactory solution.
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:18:16AM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> This seems simple enough, but of course should be checked by Mac/Win people.
+1
> I also removed traces of it in the English User's Guide, and added some
> entries in release notes. Feel free to improve on the wording.
Than
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:47:04AM +, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > additionally whether it would
> > make sense to turn this option on by default when using
> > --enable-build-type=pre (autotools) and -DLYX_RELEASE=OFF (CMake).
>
> I don't think this is smart, imagine you bi
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:57:50AM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> When I wrote this, I thought about a warnings dialog. But now I think that a
> separate log file (configure_errors.log) might be better. It is easier to
> check that the file is not empty.
Ah I see what you mean. Yeah that co
Le 12/02/2018 à 17:06, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
commit 24fd7d2bac4db276992de1f736ad3a3ecc1647b8
Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Date: Mon Feb 12 17:06:19 2018 +0100
Remove template AGUTeX.lyx from Makefile
Oups, I forgot this one.
As AGUTeX.lyx remains in the distribution, I guess
Le 12/02/2018 à 17:35, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:28:49AM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Whatever Enrico and JMarc decide regarding this for 2.3.0 is fine for
me.
Enrico, JMarc proposed [1] the following:
I propose to keep the faulty superscript for now and take s
Le 12/02/2018 à 17:41, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
Why do you leave in the following code?
#if defined(Q_WS_X11) || defined(QPA_XCB)
pixmapCacheCB->setEnabled(false);
#endif
I'm guessing it's because you want to make as minimal changes as
possible?
Yes.
JMarc
Am 10.02.2018 um 19:51 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
I'm planning to be more strict now on which bug fixes go in for 2.3.0. I
might prefer that even a simple bug fix not be committed, unless it
fixes an important bug.
Hello Scott,
I agree that the 2.3. branch is stable I used it recently for a lar
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:35:46AM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:28:49AM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
> > Whatever Enrico and JMarc decide regarding this for 2.3.0 is fine for
> > me.
>
> Enrico, JMarc proposed [1] the following:
>
> I propose to keep the faulty
On 02/12/2018 05:55 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 12/02/2018 à 11:48, Jean-Pierre Chrétien a écrit :
>> Le 12/02/2018 à 11:32, jpc a écrit :
>>> commit 92adecb6e04024422930e7f7b60af1149d15c669
>>> Author: jpc
>>> Date: Mon Feb 12 11:30:18 2018 +0100
>>>
>>> Remove sections 6.7
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 10/02/2018 ?? 04:04, Richard Heck a écrit :
>> Yes, so that is the one JMarc guessed, though the real culprit is
>> e7827264e7e.
>> I would guess that the simple layout solution originally proposed is
>> correct, then. This commit just removed special handling for c
I??aki Larra??aga Murgoitio wrote:
> Hi Jürgen, and LyX devel team,
>
> Basque translation updated at %100 as requested :-)
Not so fast! :)
There is one more check we need from you - I just committed changes
to lib/layouttranslations (output of some strings to pdf)
(https://www.lyx.org/trac/chan
Hi Jim,
I just committed changes to lib/layouttranslations
(https://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/2554a7dffb2890f4b851c60c41cfee116c56baf6/lyxgit)
from your recent update of sv.po.
Can you please double check for us whether the translation of new strings in
pdf output ("List of Listings","see equat
Hi Yuriy,
your recent changes in ru.po also included few changes for strings
in pdf output
(https://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/2554a7dffb2890f4b851c60c41cfee116c56baf6/lyxgit)
Can you double check that it is as intended?
Thanks,
Pavel
On 02/12/2018 03:17 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Le 10/02/2018 ?? 04:04, Richard Heck a écrit :
>>> Yes, so that is the one JMarc guessed, though the real culprit is
>>> e7827264e7e.
>>> I would guess that the simple layout solution originally proposed is
>>> correct, the
On 02/12/2018 04:27 PM, Richard Heck wrote:
> commit 5ee3396459602e0982234cab064c5c960af7e4fc
> Author: Richard Heck
> Date: Mon Feb 12 16:26:27 2018 -0500
>
> Fix crash when citeengine is unknown.
Scott, this is also needed in 2.3.x. Trivial and completely safe crash-fix.
Richard
> ---
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 09:31:03PM +, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 02/12/2018 04:27 PM, Richard Heck wrote:
> > commit 5ee3396459602e0982234cab064c5c960af7e4fc
> > Author: Richard Heck
> > Date: Mon Feb 12 16:26:27 2018 -0500
> >
> > Fix crash when citeengine is unknown.
>
> Scott, this is
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 09:27:49PM +, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 02/12/2018 03:17 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Scott, 2.3.0 or 2.3.1?
>
> FWIW, I'd suggest 2.3.0. It's totally cosmetic and safe, but annoying
> for people with small screens.
Go ahead for 2.3.0.
Scott
signature.asc
Description
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 06:53:36PM +, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:35:46AM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:28:49AM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >
> > > Whatever Enrico and JMarc decide regarding this for 2.3.0 is fine for
> > > me.
> >
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 09:27:49PM +, Richard Heck wrote:
> > On 02/12/2018 03:17 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
> > > Scott, 2.3.0 or 2.3.1?
> >
> > FWIW, I'd suggest 2.3.0. It's totally cosmetic and safe, but annoying
> > for people with small screens.
>
> Go ahead for
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 06:00:52PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 10.02.2018 um 19:51 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>
> > I'm planning to be more strict now on which bug fixes go in for 2.3.0. I
> > might prefer that even a simple bug fix not be committed, unless it
> > fixes an important bug.
>
> Hello
Am 13.02.2018 um 00:19 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
I agree that the 2.3. branch is stable I used it recently for a larger
document. The strange, random Win-only crash is annoying but we cannot do
much right now.
Just to make sure, the crash you're talking about also exists for 2.2.x,
right?
Yes
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
wrote:
> Le 10/02/2018 à 20:28, Joel Kulesza a écrit :
>
>> The only comment I have is that a crash may be causable if the preference
>> is ignored rather than disabled (see https://www.mail-archive.com/l
>> yx-de...@lists.lyx.org/msg203649.ht
On 02/12/2018 07:54 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 13.02.2018 um 00:19 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>>> https://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9139
>>
>> I don't see the advantage of doing this at a major version. Even if
>> there is an advantage, I don't think that so soon before the final
>> release is the right
Am Dienstag, den 13.02.2018, 01:54 +0100 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
> In my opinion a major version should contain all major bugfixes. Here
> we
> have a menu entry for a feature that doesn't work. This is no good
> advertisement for LyX.
> We have a working fix that is well tested on Windows. If we know
45 matches
Mail list logo
