Am 10.12.2012 18:59, schrieb Richard Heck:
Sorry, but why do you decide before I could comment? Please read my comments
from today.
I judged that further discussion was not going to change people's minds, as
indeed it did not.
I was very upset because I currently invest a huge portion of my spare time for LyX and I think that
everybody should get the time to argue. I currently cannot write posts every day.
Moreover, before we change something fundamental like our layout update policy, we should bring this
to the users list. At the devel list we only have people who know a lot about the background of
LyX/LaTeX and therefore sometimes loose the focus what is important for the average users. Take for
example the proposal with different layouts for different document class versions. If we do this, we
would force our users to learn what a layout it, why there are version numbers different from LyX's
one and much more. my experience from discussions in the past is that it often helped if average
users posted their opinions that we developers often did not had in mind.
Is it a consensus if one developer is not fine with that?
Consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimous consensus. We almost never have
that, and at some point
we have to decide what to do.
That's not my point. If you decide before all developers have the feeling the discussion is over, it
is hard to expect that everybody accepts a decision.
What about the users? Have you ever thought about them and/or asked them? (Se
my first mail from
today.)
Yes, of course. We are all thinking about the users. We *are* users, after all.
Yes, but we know so much more than an average user. let's say a student writing his master's thesis.
Thus my statement above.
So what does my change break?
Here's my problem: If we do things as you propose, then we have different
layout files with the same
name under 2.0.5 and 2.0.6.
I understand your point. But as said, who really downgrades from a working LyX 2.0.6 to 2.0.5? We in
the past always added styles to layouts because our major releases only take place every 2 years
while the document class progress is much faster.
Please have a look of the layout file changes during the 2.0.x cycle. It was not only me who added a
style to layouts, others did that as well and for scientific classes we will have to do it anyway
for the reasons I stated.
But as this issue is so fundamental, I request that you bring this to the users
list and decide then.
So people using two different minor versions on two different machines
will find that a single document won't even load properly on the older version.
And that passing it
back and forth between the two causes all kinds of problems. Specifically,
files created with the
new ACM and europecv layouts will not load properly in 2.0.5.
- the changes for europeCV are cosmetic ones: I only added styles for things one currently has to
specify in the preamble. I can retract my patch for this document class
- for ACM we will have no other choice because your paper won't be accepted for submission without
the new styles. So if you reject my patch for ACm, you force users to read the submission guidelines
after they notice that their submission was rejected. They will then find out that they will have to
add things as ERT. (But only experiences users know how to handle ERT.) Is this our aim?
My proposal is to ship the new layout, but with a new, versioned name.
I'm opposed to this, see my arguments in the new thread I started. For modernCV I am not able to
deliver a layout for every document class release, also not if I try to.
For the document class files: I state it the last time: You have to fulfill the
submission
guidelines. The journals don't care of your OS and versions. If you don't
fulfill the guidelines,
you won't be accepted, point!
Yes, but you are assuming something that does not seem evident, namely: that
everyone who is using
these class files is doing so because they are planning to submit their paper
to a journal that uses
that class file.
Of course, because that is what these document classes and thus our layouts are
designed for.
That is not true. People have old files that got rejected, but they keep them in
that format anyway. Those files should not stop working because they upgraded
LyX.
As I stated, except of the case with Springer old files keep compilable. None of may changes break
the compilation of existing files. Also pre-prints, editor notes, etc. work fine.
Besides this, just today I got this mail:
-----------------------------------------
Am 12.12.2012 22:05, schrieb yoderj:
> Uwe,
>
> Don't know if I'm contacting the right person (found your email through a
> quick Google search), but ...
>
> Thanks for writing the page
>
> http://wiki.lyx.org/Examples/Springer
>
> It made it trivial for me to get LyX working with Springer's svjour3 class.
> Not only that, the writing was clear & professional, and you covered both
> the system-wide and user-specific cases.
>
> Thanks,
> Josiah Yoder
-----------------------------------------
So even our non-backward compatible Springer revision was useful. Without it, Mr. Yoder would not
have been able to use LyX to write his journal paper.
I.e., in the existing acmsiggraph.layout:
\DeclareLaTeXClass[acmsiggraph,lineno.sty]{ACM SIGGRAPH (Old version)}
And how should an average user know what the new version is ind what the old one? And what is if in
January ACM releases new guidelines?
- If you write a file with that document class for the first time, you will only be confused about
the different versions
- If you have an existing file, it is still compilable and the output is fine with my updated
layout. If you want to submit (and only in that case) you can look at the updated template/example
file, and add the 2 new styles to your file and you are ready to submit. Isn't that easy? So there
is no need to distinguish between different layouts for scientific classes.
regards Uwe
