Hi Vincent, Thank you very much for getting back to this.
On 2010-10-23 03:21, "Vincent van Ravesteijn" <v...@lyx.org> wrote: > Hi Gregory, > >> 1) I have a patch set for 1.6.X which will no longer apply because Vincent >> (vfr) already contributed an alternative. I presume that I need to modify >> my patch to layer on top of his. I tried to do this by merging but too many conflicts turned it into a mess so that it was necessary to start again and I did not yet have the chance. > Actually, I wouldn't say I contributed an alternative. I just put in > your idea but implemented slightly different. Because I kept your idea > in mind, it was easy to implement the hash function part and I think > that the very simple patch I attach, is exactly what you had in mind. >> 3) How should lyx2lyx be handled in this case? I guess I need to layer a >> conversion from vfr's patch (format 369) to my proposal. Or if that file >> format was never a stable release can it be ignored? > > Now we only need to revert the hash numbers to 1,2,3... but I'm not > proficient at all when it comes to Python. Nor me unfortunately. I presume that we could just convert to 1,2,3 based on the order they appear in the document or sort by hash - I'm not sure it makes much difference > please check whether the patch that I attach to the bug report is what > you had in mind. > http://www.lyx.org/trac/attachment/ticket/6058/bug6058.patch I took a look and this looks good so far and a bit simpler than what I thought would be necessary but I haven't tried to test it yet. I do remember that someone commented that they didn't like the use of boost::uint32_t and that (IIRC) just using an unsigned int with an assertion about its size should be fine. The other thing was that my original patch used a Map somewhere in BufferParams to map author onto the hash value. How do you get around that since I think you have a Vector? Thanks again, Greg.
