On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 04:17:15PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: > > Please comment and test. Because this patch changes core lyx > > functionality, I will wait for two OKs to proceed. > > No comment?
The only comment I have is that during ordinary development time no 'two OKs' are formally needed. If you got 'semi-consensus' on the general route (in this case this would be something like "implementing embedding with fallback 'disable it' if the feature does not stabilize) you are free to commit even without explicit nods after a certain grace period following the publication of the patch. This period usually ranges from minutes for trivial stuff up to a few days for major steps on your path and has a tendency to shorten after committing lots of uncontroversial stuff and lenghten as soon controversial stuff went in without proper discussion. The rules change as soon as a release is decided upon and a release manager is announced. After that it's up to the release manager to decree rules. This might be 'two nods are needed'. That's more or less how the last few releases worked. This is not to say that waiting for explicit nods is discouraged or even forbidden. > There is an obvious problem with this patch in that embeddingChanged > is checked in updateLabels, along with structureChanged. That is to > say, embedding dialog is updated only when paragraph structure is > changed, not when an inset with embedded files is created/destroyed. > > I am aware of this problem but have no good solution yet. If there is > no objection and no better implementation, I will commit this patch > tomorrow, and separate embeddingChanged from structureChanged later. Just go on and try to solve the problems you envounter in a timely manner. And try to keep trunk compilable ;-) Andre'
