Le 23/10/2017 à 08:28, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 09:01:02PM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
That way I can run the ctests just to double-check.
Thanks for sending me the patch. I checked and there are no changes in
ctests (with respect to 71a35ea) so I think we are good
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 09:01:02PM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> That way I can run the ctests just to double-check.
Thanks for sending me the patch. I checked and there are no changes in
ctests (with respect to 71a35ea) so I think we are good to go.
Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 01:07:29PM +, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote:
> Le 07/05/2017 à 21:58, Jean-Pierre Chrétien a écrit :
>
> >
> > What do you think? Should I parse the files to find \usepackage{xxx}
> > command in preambles, where xxx is one of the ten math packages managed
> > by math
Le 07/05/2017 à 21:58, Jean-Pierre Chrétien a écrit :
What do you think? Should I parse the files to find \usepackage{xxx} command in
preambles, where xxx is one of the ten math packages managed by math options
I did not find any occurrence.
or is it sufficient to have no ctest failure?
