On 2016-03-29, Georg Baum wrote:
> Guenter Milde wrote:
>>>> c) Users with the obsolete documentclass will realise that they need to
>>>> update before trying to commit their article to the paper.
>>> How? There is no connection to the template anymore once the document is
>>> created.
>> OK, I have to clarify the limitations: "if we update the template to use
>> the new document class version,
>>>> c) Users with the obsolete documentclass will realise that they need to
>>>> update before trying to commit their article to the paper.
>> But if we keep the old template, these users will not realize
>> that they need to update the document class."
> I assumed that we update the template, but I still don't understand how an
> updated template will remind a user that he needs to change the document
> class of existing documents. Where is the connection between the document
> the user created from the old template, and the updated template?
There is none. My statement was for users starting a new document from the
template.
c) Users with the obsolete *.cls file will realise that
they need to update their LaTeX documentclass file ...
For users starting their new documents from a previous contribution, we
could add a LabelString "obsoleted document class" to the old layout and
also mark this fact in the document class name, e.g.
#
\DeclareLaTeXClass[aastex,amssymb.sty,latexsym.sty,natbib.sty,verbatim.sty]{American
Astronomical Society (AASTeX) (obsoleted version)}
...
>>>> A common naming of the layout files in branch and master simplifies
>>>> both, implementation and understanding of the scheme. This is IMO more
>>>> important than having the "short and generic" name for the current
>>>> layout.
>>> I disagree. IMO, it is more important to have a consistency between
>>> current .layout and current .cls file. This does also reduce possible
>>> future namespace conflicts. The needed lyx2lyx changes are trivial, and
>>> could even be implemented in a generic helper function.
>> However, the changes would require a file format change.
>> (Not a problem, if a new layout requires a file format change anyway but I
>> prefer it not to...)
> Yes, a file format change is needed, but this is not a problem even if we
> decide that new layouts do not require it anyway: The proposal was to rename
> the layout in master only, and in master a file format change is no problem,
> since the implementation in lyx2lyx would be trivial.
We have an additional "degree of freedom" with the "GUI name".
Instead of renaming layout files, we can add version info to both layouts in
the declaration.
Then, aastex.layout could be called "AAS TeX (obsolete)"
and aastex6.layout called "AAS TeX (version 6)", say.
This can even be done in trunk when adding a new layout (if
reconfiguring is expected after installation of a minor update).
Günter
