On 10/27/18 3:04 PM, Daniel wrote: > On 27/10/2018 19:50, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: >> On 10/27/18 1:45 PM, Daniel wrote: >>> On 27/10/2018 19:19, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: >>>> Now that the server has been moved successfully, we can turn our >>>> attention back to LyX 2.3.2. Please let me know by Monday if there are >>>> any patches that might change strings that need to go to 2.3.2. The >>>> plan >>>> otherwise is to freeze strings Tuesday and send email to the >>>> translators >>>> that day. >>>> >>>> Riki >>> >>> Since I am able to build on Win10, I'd be happy to test there. Just >>> let me know what git command to use in order get the right version. >> >> >> The source we release will be the then-current state of 2.3.x, with >> minor changes (such as the version displayed in About LyX.) So if you're >> currently using 2.3.x, then you are testing what will be 2.3.2. If >> you're not doing that but could, it would be extremely helpful. >> >> I'm still meaning to try to release "weeklies" or something of the sort >> for Windows, so people can more easily use 2.3.x and help us test it. Am >> I right that we could basically just release the binaries and people >> could replace their current 2.3.1 binary (say) with the new one? It >> seems like a hassle to have to go through the whole installation process >> again if one is going to be doing this regularly. >> >> Riki > > I'd rather create a 2.3.x binary and place it in my current LyX 2.3 > directory than run git on 2.3.x. Changing between master and 2.3.x is > kind of a hassle because it needs a complete rebuild.
If disk space is not an issue, you can have multiple directories all containing git checkouts. I have: lyx-devel lyx-pristine lyx-stable The pristine one is what I install from locally. I use devel and stable for coding. Speaking of which: Have you tried to create a LyX 'package' from your builds? There is a "make package" command available under cmake, but I don't know if it works on Windows. I've got no idea, really, how Uwe did this. > Weeklies sound good. Rather than replacing the current binary they > could also have another name. So both stable and weekly could > co-exist. Alternatively, there could be a "Weekly" self contained one > time installation and then replacing the binary there so the stable > directory stays untouched. I'll keep thinking about this. Riki
