On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 02:01:38AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 26.01.2016 um 17:58 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > >Thanks also for your work on this patch. I did a few quick tests. I find > >the ACM tests all pass now. However, there are tex2lyx tests that fail. > >Do they pass for you with this patch? > > They pass for me. One needs to update the fileformat for the tex2lyx > testfiles of course. I could add these changes to my patch but with the > fileformat change for all doc files the patch becomes huge and the essential > parts are somewhat hidden.
Please always post complete patches. Are you worried about file size when attaching a patch? > However, since your tests passed so far, I interpret it as +1 and committed > this with all the fileformat changes to the *.lyx files. > I verified that tex2lyx works too. It was not a +1. Please note the following email: https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=20160109220731.GA4193%40cotopaxi If you don't have time to read the emails, please read the subject lines at least. I know you weren't here for a long time so it is especially difficult, but it would be helpful if you could take the 5 seconds for each email thread to read the subjects. Even despite that email, consider that I wrote "a quick look at this patch". This means I did not even read your patch in-depth. When I say that "the ACM tests all pass now", that does not mean anything more than "the ACM tests all pass now". Tests are useful for telling us when something is likely wrong, but they cannot tell us that something is necessarily right. I think only an in-depth code review can tell us that. I do appreciate your work on this issue. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
