On Tuesday 24 October 2006 8:25 am, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
>
> > Mixing the two previous paragraphs, that means that we should release a
> > product as soon as possible when certain requirements are met, those
> > requirements are:
> > - to have a stable frontend;
> > - no (known) regressions are allowed against old documents, if a
> > document works for 1.4 it should work as well in 1.5 without any change
> > from user. - The last requirement does not applies vice-versa, it is
> > possible to have a document that works for 1.5 that when backported does
> > not work for 1.4, I will try to fix those cases but they are not our
> > priority (back-port is a convenience).
>
> Agreed. However (and that was what I tried to point out),
> \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} only would have been such a regression, and I
> am very sure that lots of documents from 1.4 wouldn't have worked in 1.5
> without any change from the user. Some would not even have worked without
> exporting, editing and latexing manually (I've listed some of the more
> frequent packages).
IMHO there was a misunderstanding from the begin. In order to avoid beating
a dead horse here :-) I will write this again, every document working in 1.4
should work in 1.5, those not working should be filled as blocking bugs.
> > Frontends:
> > This should only be done on the condition that there are people
> > interested in having it on shape for 1.5 release. Georg and Jürgen do I
> > assume correctly that you would welcome this change?
> > For 1.6 I propose to remove qt3 and completely have it superseeded by
> > qt4.
>
> I would welcome it, yes (and would agree on dropping it as soon as the 1.6
> work begins). However, if I'm the only one, then let it rest.
After Georg's (and other developers) answers I drop this proposal, it only
makes sense to have goal where people are working. :-)
> > 1.5 Features:
> > - Unicode / new encodings.
>
> I'd rather say: Unicode and the _old_ (matured) (LaTeX input)encodings ;-)
Old encoding are not a new feature. ;-)
> I think it's rather unfortunate that the freeze affects Ugras' (and
> Georg's) nomencl work. Ugras has invested a lot of time in the insetcommand
> in order to get his pet projects, nomencl and splitidx, in. While the
> latter is still under development (and thus clearly a candidate for 1.6),
> the former has been proposed weeks ago already.
I will take that into account. :-)
> Personally, I have nothing in the pipe which cannot wait. I am a bit short
> in time ATM, but I try to help polishing the qt4 dialogs and testing the
> inputenc work.
Your work is welcome. :-)
> > Questions:
> >
> > Q: Does Denmark agree that bug fixes are welcome at all times?
> >
> > A: I am not Denmark but I will answer this. The role to follow here is
> > the stable series. Not all fixes are welcome at all times, special at the
> > last day or minute. :-)
>
> I have proposed some fixes for 1.4 actually, which are still to be reviewed
> by Jean-Marc. But of course, fixes for 1.4 do only make sense if they can
> go into 1.5 as well (one of them, a duplicate checker for labels, might not
> pass your criteria).
If you have a patch and Jean-Marc favorable review that is more than enough
for me. :-)
> > Thank you for reading until this point. :-)
>
> Thanks for the explanations.
>
> > Best regards,
>
> Jürgen
--
José Abílio
