On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:00:37PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:33:12PM +0200, Guillaume MM wrote: > > > > I find that the enhancement request came in a bit late in the 2.3 > > release process for such a sensitive issue, and that 2.3 already > > improves the situation with the needauth mechanism. So, if we conclude > > that an implementation of Pygments should not have to request > > -shell-escape, then I do not agree that this question is important and > > must be addressed before 2.3.0beta1 (besides, for me it is not > > well-framed either). > > I agree that it is late in the process, and indeed that does make > stronger the proposal of "let's just revert". But this issue is not the > only one holding up beta1. When we make progress on the other issues, if > this one is still hanging in the air and we cannot agree on what to do, > then we might need to move on and revert. My opinion is that we're not > there yet.
I don't think that reverting is in discussion here, apart from the (apparently, IMO) biased opinion of Guillame. The support for minted is not risky in itself, otherwise any usage of generic latex packages would be. > Thanks for your logical arguments and your proposal. Fuzzy logic, maybe. At the moment it is more risky the needauth option than the minted support. But maybe I am forgetting that that was an improvement. Ipse dixit <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit>. -- Enrico
