On 03/28/2016 04:49 PM, Guenter Milde wrote: > 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.
I see. But, if we do allow layout additions, then it's not a problem, so I think it isn't a problem. Richard
