Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2016-04-05, Richard Heck wrote: >> On 04/05/2016 04:36 AM, Guenter Milde wrote: > >>>>> For the other patch (acmsiggraph.layout with incompatible version >>>>> but same cls file name), I would wait for an agreement whether to >>>>> update the layout (file format change needed) or add a new one. My >>>>> last preference is an updated layout file. > >>>> Does anyone disagree with having a new one? > > This point (do we allow a new layout version when there is no change in > the *.cls file name) was still not settled.
Now I am confused. Until today I thought that the consensus was to have two layout files in parallel. AFAIK there was no consensus how to name them (e.g. whether acmsiggraph.layout would be the old or new version), or whether acmsiggraph.layout would not exist at all (but acmsiggraph- v080.layout and acmsiggraph-v090.layout instead), but this is not important for 2.2.0. We can still decide later if we want to rename one or both layout files. I don't have the time now to discuss this further. I'd suggest to use your second patch from march, 30. The only question would be whether it is allowed to change translatable strings (we are past string freeze). Georg
