On 2016-03-28, Richard Heck wrote: > On 03/28/2016 03:36 PM, Guenter Milde wrote: >> On 2016-03-28, Richard Heck wrote: >>> On 03/28/2016 06:50 AM, Georg Baum wrote: >>>>>> 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 > I'm confused. Why do we have this problem when 2.2 has not even been > released? Because, if we do not allow layout addition without file format change and no file format change in minor releases, we must do the homework and update/add layouts for acmsiggraph and amstex before releasing 2.2. -- otherwise we ship the complete 2.2.x series with layouts that only work with obsolete (and no longer available) document class versions. > In any event, I think we do have consensus that it's fine to put > completely new layouts into stable, and at the very least that means > that in this kind of case we can add a new layout for the updated > version, etc. I hope so. Thanks, Günter
