Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 03.03.2014 22:28, schrieb Georg Baum: > >> Thanks for the update, Jürgen, I agree. Uwe, are you finished with the >> documentation until then? > > No. There is still too much to do and the translators also need time. I > will see what I can do this week.
What is missing? I agree completely with Jean-Marc here: it is no problem to continue with updating the docs in the stable 2.1 series as long as the major features are documented correctly. I also do not see any problems to extend the translation period after the RC, translations could not destroy the release. > Is it really that pressing? I mean I will for sure find further issues > while updating the docs and I think we should take the time to fix as many > bugs as possible. Yes, it is really that pressing. Adding a few days is no problem, but if we add weeks we won't release in the forseeable future. During the past weeks, several developers (including you) brought the release a big step forward. I really like how this worked (and would like to thank everybody who was involved), almost without coordination several people picked some problem to work on, and several show stoppers could be fixed. LyX 2.1 is in a really good shape now, and if we do not release soon, people will start to fix minor bugs and destabilize it again. This would also mean that we would basically need to repeat the beta testing and throw the beta testing effort of the past months away. > LyX 2.1 still crashes frequently (I have no recipe to reproduce these > crashes yet) This is of course a problem (which I don't see on linux btw). It would be interesting to get a call stack of these crashes (either run the debug version, or compile the release version with debug symbols and attach the debugger to the running process after it crashed). Maybe the call stack would ring a bell in the head of somebody. > and there are some Windows-specific issues Vincent and I > could not solve (e.g. that LyX's console is now always shown when viewing > a PDF. I consider this a cosmetic issue which can also be solved later. Is there a bug report for this? > But the most important issue is that LyX does still require Python > 2.7. This limitation is kind of a nightmare for me because more and more > PCs come with a pre-installed Python 3.x which will of course interfere > with Python 2.7.x so that LyX 2.1beta2 was not configurable for some > users. Or do I missed something and LyX is now Python 3.x-ready? If so I > will stress-test that. LyX requires python 2, and as long as python 2 is maintained I don't see any pressing need to upgrade. python 2 and python 3 can be installed in parallel on windows, and this works without problems (BTDT). They store their configuration in versioned registry paths, the installer does not put anything into the PATH variable, the only thing you have to do (as a user) is to call the version you want. As far as LyX is concerned, python 3 can be completely ignored. The LyX installer needs to check for a supported python 2.x, install it if it is missing, and put it into the LyX path prefix, so that it takes precedence about any python found in the system PATH (which could btw also be a cygwin python). I don't see anything which could cause trouble with LyX and python 3, and even if there is a problem, I don't see how this would be different than in LyX 2.0.x, and how python 3 would behave differently than any other nonsuitable python version e.g. from cygwin (as far as LyX is concerned). What problem do you see exactly if python 3 is installed? Georg
