On 06/06/2016 04:27 PM, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 06/06/2016 20:33, Georg Baum a écrit : >> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> >>> Le 05/06/2016 à 21:05, Guillaume Munch a écrit : >>>> Yet, most of the file format changes are very simple. I wonder >>>> whether one could introduce a single compilation variable to >>>> disable them, and ask developers to enclose file-format-specific >>>> code between the corresponding #ifdefs. (For instance in my last >>>> file format change all that was needed to be enclosed was the >>>> parsing code.) This would allow the release of "master versions >>>> without file format changes", either as nightlies or as official >>>> "x.5" versions as Pavel suggested by Pavel in another message >>>> (without having to maintain three branches in parallel). >>> >>> This looks too complicated to me. And eventually there will be >>> changes that cannot be treated like that, and all the previous >>> work on small changes will be useless. > > The current workflow of testing master all at once before a release > has proven to be too complicated. Notice that only the input and output > of the features has to be treated with #ifdefs, not the whole changed > code. Do you have a particular example situation in mind which would be > too difficult?
The problem, as I'll elaborate below, is that the new features can't be pulled apart from the changed input and output (when that changes). > As far as I know the biggest file format change for 2.2 was Enrico's > work on separators. On the looks of it, preserving the previous format > with a switch was entirely doable (see c668ebf6). I don't see how this would be possible. The new code introduces a separator inset. There is no longer any separator style. I can imagine writing the old layout to a file and then having the document open properly in 2.1.x, but then it will not have opened properly in 2.2.x (i.e., master). The problem is even more serious with new types of inset, say. I have been thinking about adding a proper endnote inset (to deal with some XHTML issues). Is the proposal just not to write it to the file? Or to disable the feature entirely? Then it does not get tested. There are lots of cases like that one, such as Uwe's various additions to the box dialog. Richard
