Re: Ubuntu Trusty testers needed

[Benedict Holland]

Right. I deeply question that logic though. The fact that a corrupted save
bug was fixed is sort of a game changer from a usability perspective. I
mean, if it wasn't well known, well documented, or fixed, I might say that
it makes sense but as it stands, releasing code that has a known
catastrophic or critical or severe bug that was later fixed seems like it
will just cause far more problems in the future, especially on systems that
don't take updates.

Again, I wouldn't find this a problem except in this fairly rare case
particularly when the first thing to do is make sure that the software used
is up to date when it comes to fixing problems.

I suppose, that said, I don't mind testing lyx on various systems but the
2.0.8 branch is old and is in release for what, at least a year? What
additional testing, apart from that, is required? Is there a spec sheet for
various usability tests that should be performed or is it just ad-hoc
testing and report bugs to the channel?

~Ben

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org wrote:

 On 07/02/2015 03:24 PM, Benedict Holland wrote:

 Just curious, why are we testing old versions of an application with
 known catastrophic bugs? Wasn't the uncorrupted save feature implemented in
 the 2.1 branch? Also, I have been using the 2.1.3 exclusively for a long
 time and I admit that I am a power user. It is stable as anything I use and
 when combined with LuaTex, it produces beamer presentations and pdf
 documents that are absolutely stunning. This includes images. XeLatex had
 problems for me when importing PDF images but LuaTex does it far better.
 None of this has to do with Lyx though. Lyx is performing beautifully and I
 am using it to the fullest extent possible.

 The ONLY thing I have a gripe about is the lack of biblatex and biber
 support. I get it, but I wish that it was there.


 The testing here, I take it, is just to make sure that 2.0.8.1 works as
 expected on Ubuntu 14.04, which is still live (and widely used) and whose
 policies prohibit an upgrade to 2.1.x. Despite all the bugfixes.

 Richard

Re: Ubuntu Trusty testers needed

[Richard Heck]

On 07/04/2015 04:09 PM, Benedict Holland wrote:
Right. I deeply question that logic though. The fact that a corrupted 
save bug was fixed is sort of a game changer from a usability 
perspective. I mean, if it wasn't well known, well documented, or 
fixed, I might say that it makes sense but as it stands, releasing 
code that has a known catastrophic or critical or severe bug that was 
later fixed seems like it will just cause far more problems in the 
future, especially on systems that don't take updates.


Yes, but this is not our decision. It's an Ubuntu policy. It makes a lot 
more sense with libraries, really, but it's part of why I personally 
don't use Ubuntu LTS.


Note that the problem that triggered the corrupted save bug has been 
fixed in 2.0.8.1.


I suppose, that said, I don't mind testing lyx on various systems but 
the 2.0.8 branch is old and is in release for what, at least a year? 
What additional testing, apart from that, is required? Is there a spec 
sheet for various usability tests that should be performed or is it 
just ad-hoc testing and report bugs to the channel?


I'm not the best person to answer this, but I think all that's needed is 
to try it out pretty quickly. Since other packages haven't been 
seriously updated on Trusty either (e.g., Qt), one wouldn't expect there 
to be any issue.


Richard

Re: update arabic po

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 02.07.2015 um 18:49 schrieb hatim ali:

Dear Uwe
- i updated arabic po file.

- small Questions:
chapter title from left to right, i want to make the text from rtl.
please see the attachment file.


Hi Hatim,

you found a regression bug in LyX 2.2dev. Could you please report it in 
our bug tracker.


Opening your file with LyX 2.1.x the chapter title is correctly RTL.

In you example file you use a lot of code in the document preamble. You 
don't need all of it. For example


\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}

will automatically be added by LyX when you use the page style fancy 
in the document settings.


For custom header/footer lines LyX provides the module custom 
header/footer lines.

So you could add things like
\lhead{\resizebox{1in}{!}{\includegraphics{main_logo.ps}}}
directly in the main text.

LyX also supports hyperref copletely. So things like
\usepackage{hyperref}%لتلوين الاشارات المرجعية وجعل الفهارس قابلة للنقر
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
citecolor=black,
filecolor=black,
urlcolor=black,
}
can be omitted in the preamble since you can set this in the document 
settings under PDF properties.


Attached is your example file (in the format of LyX 2.2dev) where i 
removed some preamble code as I described.


In general please use the simplest possible version for a test file 
(remove also all unnecessary preamble code.


regards Uwe


chapter.lyx
Description: application/lyx

Re: update arabic po

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 02.07.2015 um 18:49 schrieb hatim ali:

Dear Uwe
- i updated arabic po file.

- small Questions:
chapter title from left to right, i want to make the text from rtl.
please see the attachment file.


Hi Hatim,

you found a regression bug in LyX 2.2dev. Could you please report it in 
our bug tracker.


Opening your file with LyX 2.1.x the chapter title is correctly RTL.

In you example file you use a lot of code in the document preamble. You 
don't need all of it. For example


\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}

will automatically be added by LyX when you use the page style fancy 
in the document settings.


For custom header/footer lines LyX provides the module custom 
header/footer lines.

So you could add things like
\lhead{\resizebox{1in}{!}{\includegraphics{main_logo.ps}}}
directly in the main text.

LyX also supports hyperref copletely. So things like
\usepackage{hyperref}%لتلوين الاشارات المرجعية وجعل الفهارس قابلة للنقر
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
citecolor=black,
filecolor=black,
urlcolor=black,
}
can be omitted in the preamble since you can set this in the document 
settings under PDF properties.


Attached is your example file (in the format of LyX 2.2dev) where i 
removed some preamble code as I described.


In general please use the simplest possible version for a test file 
(remove also all unnecessary preamble code.


regards Uwe


chapter.lyx
Description: application/lyx

Re: Ubuntu Trusty testers needed

[Benedict Holland]

Right. I deeply question that logic though. The fact that a corrupted save
bug was fixed is sort of a game changer from a usability perspective. I
mean, if it wasn't well known, well documented, or fixed, I might say that
it makes sense but as it stands, releasing code that has a known
catastrophic or critical or severe bug that was later fixed seems like it
will just cause far more problems in the future, especially on systems that
don't take updates.

Again, I wouldn't find this a problem except in this fairly rare case
particularly when the first thing to do is make sure that the software used
is up to date when it comes to fixing problems.

I suppose, that said, I don't mind testing lyx on various systems but the
2.0.8 branch is old and is in release for what, at least a year? What
additional testing, apart from that, is required? Is there a spec sheet for
various usability tests that should be performed or is it just ad-hoc
testing and report bugs to the channel?

~Ben

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org wrote:

 On 07/02/2015 03:24 PM, Benedict Holland wrote:

 Just curious, why are we testing old versions of an application with
 known catastrophic bugs? Wasn't the uncorrupted save feature implemented in
 the 2.1 branch? Also, I have been using the 2.1.3 exclusively for a long
 time and I admit that I am a power user. It is stable as anything I use and
 when combined with LuaTex, it produces beamer presentations and pdf
 documents that are absolutely stunning. This includes images. XeLatex had
 problems for me when importing PDF images but LuaTex does it far better.
 None of this has to do with Lyx though. Lyx is performing beautifully and I
 am using it to the fullest extent possible.

 The ONLY thing I have a gripe about is the lack of biblatex and biber
 support. I get it, but I wish that it was there.


 The testing here, I take it, is just to make sure that 2.0.8.1 works as
 expected on Ubuntu 14.04, which is still live (and widely used) and whose
 policies prohibit an upgrade to 2.1.x. Despite all the bugfixes.

 Richard

Re: Ubuntu Trusty testers needed

[Richard Heck]

On 07/04/2015 04:09 PM, Benedict Holland wrote:
Right. I deeply question that logic though. The fact that a corrupted 
save bug was fixed is sort of a game changer from a usability 
perspective. I mean, if it wasn't well known, well documented, or 
fixed, I might say that it makes sense but as it stands, releasing 
code that has a known catastrophic or critical or severe bug that was 
later fixed seems like it will just cause far more problems in the 
future, especially on systems that don't take updates.


Yes, but this is not our decision. It's an Ubuntu policy. It makes a lot 
more sense with libraries, really, but it's part of why I personally 
don't use Ubuntu LTS.


Note that the problem that triggered the corrupted save bug has been 
fixed in 2.0.8.1.


I suppose, that said, I don't mind testing lyx on various systems but 
the 2.0.8 branch is old and is in release for what, at least a year? 
What additional testing, apart from that, is required? Is there a spec 
sheet for various usability tests that should be performed or is it 
just ad-hoc testing and report bugs to the channel?


I'm not the best person to answer this, but I think all that's needed is 
to try it out pretty quickly. Since other packages haven't been 
seriously updated on Trusty either (e.g., Qt), one wouldn't expect there 
to be any issue.


Richard

Re: update arabic po

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 02.07.2015 um 18:49 schrieb hatim ali:

Dear Uwe
- i updated arabic po file.

- small Questions:
chapter title from left to right, i want to make the text from rtl.
please see the attachment file.


Hi Hatim,

you found a regression bug in LyX 2.2dev. Could you please report it in 
our bug tracker.


Opening your file with LyX 2.1.x the chapter title is correctly RTL.

In you example file you use a lot of code in the document preamble. You 
don't need all of it. For example


\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}

will automatically be added by LyX when you use the page style "fancy" 
in the document settings.


For custom header/footer lines LyX provides the module "custom 
header/footer lines".

So you could add things like
\lhead{\resizebox{1in}{!}{\includegraphics{main_logo.ps}}}
directly in the main text.

LyX also supports hyperref copletely. So things like
\usepackage{hyperref}%لتلوين الاشارات المرجعية وجعل الفهارس قابلة للنقر
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
citecolor=black,
filecolor=black,
urlcolor=black,
}
can be omitted in the preamble since you can set this in the document 
settings under PDF properties.


Attached is your example file (in the format of LyX 2.2dev) where i 
removed some preamble code as I described.


In general please use the simplest possible version for a test file 
(remove also all unnecessary preamble code.


regards Uwe


chapter.lyx
Description: application/lyx

Re: Ubuntu Trusty testers needed

[Benedict Holland]

Right. I deeply question that logic though. The fact that a corrupted save
bug was fixed is sort of a game changer from a usability perspective. I
mean, if it wasn't well known, well documented, or fixed, I might say that
it makes sense but as it stands, releasing code that has a known
catastrophic or critical or severe bug that was later fixed seems like it
will just cause far more problems in the future, especially on systems that
don't take updates.

Again, I wouldn't find this a problem except in this fairly rare case
particularly when the first thing to do is make sure that the software used
is up to date when it comes to fixing problems.

I suppose, that said, I don't mind testing lyx on various systems but the
2.0.8 branch is old and is in release for what, at least a year? What
additional testing, apart from that, is required? Is there a spec sheet for
various usability tests that should be performed or is it just ad-hoc
testing and report bugs to the channel?

~Ben

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Richard Heck  wrote:

> On 07/02/2015 03:24 PM, Benedict Holland wrote:
>
>> Just curious, why are we testing old versions of an application with
>> known catastrophic bugs? Wasn't the uncorrupted save feature implemented in
>> the 2.1 branch? Also, I have been using the 2.1.3 exclusively for a long
>> time and I admit that I am a power user. It is stable as anything I use and
>> when combined with LuaTex, it produces beamer presentations and pdf
>> documents that are absolutely stunning. This includes images. XeLatex had
>> problems for me when importing PDF images but LuaTex does it far better.
>> None of this has to do with Lyx though. Lyx is performing beautifully and I
>> am using it to the fullest extent possible.
>>
>> The ONLY thing I have a gripe about is the lack of biblatex and biber
>> support. I get it, but I wish that it was there.
>>
>
> The testing here, I take it, is just to make sure that 2.0.8.1 works as
> expected on Ubuntu 14.04, which is still live (and widely used) and whose
> policies prohibit an upgrade to 2.1.x. Despite all the bugfixes.
>
> Richard
>
>

Re: Ubuntu Trusty testers needed

[Richard Heck]

On 07/04/2015 04:09 PM, Benedict Holland wrote:
Right. I deeply question that logic though. The fact that a corrupted 
save bug was fixed is sort of a game changer from a usability 
perspective. I mean, if it wasn't well known, well documented, or 
fixed, I might say that it makes sense but as it stands, releasing 
code that has a known catastrophic or critical or severe bug that was 
later fixed seems like it will just cause far more problems in the 
future, especially on systems that don't take updates.


Yes, but this is not our decision. It's an Ubuntu policy. It makes a lot 
more sense with libraries, really, but it's part of why I personally 
don't use Ubuntu LTS.


Note that the problem that triggered the corrupted save bug has been 
fixed in 2.0.8.1.


I suppose, that said, I don't mind testing lyx on various systems but 
the 2.0.8 branch is old and is in release for what, at least a year? 
What additional testing, apart from that, is required? Is there a spec 
sheet for various usability tests that should be performed or is it 
just ad-hoc testing and report bugs to the channel?


I'm not the best person to answer this, but I think all that's needed is 
to try it out pretty quickly. Since other packages haven't been 
seriously updated on Trusty either (e.g., Qt), one wouldn't expect there 
to be any issue.


Richard