On 2016-03-28, Richard Heck wrote: > On 03/28/2016 06:50 AM, Georg Baum wrote: >> Richard Heck wrote: >> On 03/25/2016 02:34 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> It all boils down to the question: Is the addition of a new .layout file a >> file format change or not? ... >> Pro "new layout files are a file format change": >> - All documents produced by 2.2.x can always be edited and exported even if >> x is different. This is important for people using different machines, or >> echanging work wth colleagues. However, this does not hold for case 3: incompatible class files: After updating TeXLive, both aastex.lyx and acmsiggraph.lyx templates (as well as any/most documents based on the corresponding layouts can no longer be compiled due to incompatible changes (aastex.lyx requires aastex.cls which is now replaced by aastex6.lyx; acmsiggraph.layout depends on commands/environments that ore not supported in the last version of acmsiggraph.cls). The pro has to be downscaled to "- All documents produced by 2.2.x can always be edited even if x is different." >> Con "new layout files are a file format change": >> - No new LaTeX classes can't be supported in a stable version >> - We have the same situation already with custom layout files: If a document >> using a custom layout file is interchanged, the layout file needs to be >> interchanged as well. If that is not done, then we have a fallback >> implemented so that such documents can still be edited, but not exported, >> and the user gets a warning. >> - lyx2lyx cannot do anything useful on backward conversion, and the forward >> conversion would be a noop >> To me it looks like the Cons are more important, so I tend to change >> my mind and agree with Richard here. Did I miss anything? > Not so far as I can see. And of course people can always get the new > layout file, either from git.lyx.org or from the other installation or > whatever. (It's possible that an error message mentioning this would be > a good idea.) I also prefer "new layouts do not require a file format change". >>>> 3b. The .cls file has been updated but uses the same name. >>>> 3bi. Only new styles have been added. >>>> - Regarding branch, this is covered in the section of Development.lyx >>>> that is currently "2.6 Backporting new styles to the stable version" - >>>> Regarding master, we can just update the layout directly without any of >>>> the renaming of files that was necessary in (3a). >>> Let me just say thanks again to Georg for sorting this out. >> To my konwledge, this mechanism has not been used yet at all. I conclude >> from this that this whole discussion is much less pressing than it seems at >> a first glance. > Possibly. It tends to seem very pressing when it arises, then it goes > away again. >>>> 3bii. It is not just that new styles have been added. > I think it is going to be dang-near impossible to reach consensus on > this now. And, for the reason just given, I'm not sure we need to do so. > If really pressing problems of this kind arise, I'll handle them. on a > case-by-case basis. The proper solution is versioning, and that will be > in 2.3. We have this problem now in acmsiggraph. So we need a conclusion now. If there is consensus, that new layouts don't require a file format change, this problem would no longer be a showstopper for 2.2 >> We need to be very careful here: Producing a PDF from a LyX file must >> not produce different results depending on the LaTeX installation, >> this would be very confusing. > Is this avoidable? If people have different versions of a class file, > can't that produce different output? It can. And it does sometimes. While TeX (and to some extend LaTeX is very carefull about backwards compatibility and no change to output, this is not the case for packages and document classes. However, we should not add to this by producing different results depending on LyX version. Günter
