At 2024-10-03T20:58:34+0100, Deri wrote: > I agree stagnation is not good, but it is undesirable if changes break > existing documents.
Yes, if something breaks/alters the rendering of an existing document, it is best if that alteration is offset by a more valuable benefit. Admittedly, I see properties like "a clean interface" as having value, perhaps much more than other people might. > An example is the utp document which a lot of people on this list put > together. Neither the original 1.0, producing postscript, nor 1.1, > producing a pdf, now build properly, from > https://github.com/larrykollar/ Unix-Text-Processing. > > Various problems occur using current git groff, from extra blank > pages, text which was set as mono spaced appearing as Times-Roman, pdf > bookmarks jumping to the wrong page, input line numbers appearing in > the output (1.0 postscript only - also affects 1.23.0 - Ok in 1.22.4). Quite the litany: groff 1.23.0 spent 4½ years in development, has been out for 15 months, had 5 release candidates before that, and I'm only _now_ hearing about _any_ of this? > Are all of these changes in behaviour really fixes to bugs in groff? Impossible to say with the minimal information I have at present. Each must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
