On 12/26/22 21:27, Thibaut Cuvelier wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 at 03:11, Richard Kimberly Heck <rikih...@gmail.com> wrote:On 12/26/22 20:01, Thibaut Cuvelier wrote:Riki, let me know :)!In another email, I said: I am planning to do the tarball tomorrow, so I guess the question is whether these changes can be **completed** by then. Since they don't affect really core code, I'm not too worried about them being mature yet. So if you think this is really done, go ahead. If you're not sure, then let's wait.I don't know what I could add or remove. The tests pass and I manually checked that the new behaviour is the expected one.I'm attaching a new version of the patch with the updated layout2layout script (including a change for layout version 98 that was skipped, if I understand correctly). There is also a second patch that updates the layouts.That's a bit confusing. You just need to handle up to format 98. It's the OLD format number that's being tested in those conditions. So you want if 87 <= format <= 98. I misunderstood the script, then! I fixed that locally. That said, are we sure there's nothing to do here? Suppose someone has a custom layout for some remark-like construction. Do we just want to leave that as is?Since it's an extension of features that have never been released (apart from alphas and betas), I don't think there are many such layouts; I suppose that these users will have a look at the final set of features when 2.4 is out. Even if there were, I really don't know what I could do: even if the custom layout is a new theorem-like environment, maybe the user is completely OK with what they currently have (maybe they have a wrapper tag that does what they want, or they don't care about wrapper tags at all). The only conversion that would be mostly safe is detecting the pattern I was using in the layout files, which is maybe too specific.
OK, then. Go ahead and commit. Riki
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
