On Tuesday 10 December 2002 11:15 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | Lars> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Ok, it's out.
> | Lars> |
> | Lars> | Are we going to keep support for xforms 0.88 and 0.89 in LyX
> | Lars> 1.3?
> |
> | Lars> _I_ would like us to ditch support for 0.88 and 0.89 at once,
> | Lars> especially 0.88.
> |
> | So what was the final decision on this? I think we should get rid of
> | 0.88 now, since it is the most problematic. Note however that this
> | will cause problems for people who use solaris and for cjk-lyx,
> | because of shortcomings ion xforms support for input methods. But this
> | problems have to be faced and solved anyway.
>
> IMHO we should let 0.88 go now, and wait a short while into the freeze
> period before we make final decision on 0.89. (currently I am inclined
> to keep 0.89 for 1.3.0)
In many cases the code base contains stuff like
#if FL_VERSION < 1 && (FL_REVISION < 89 || (FL_REVISION == 89 && FL_FIXLEVEL
< 5))
What do you propose for this? Personally, I think that
FL_REVISION == 89 && FL_FIXLEVEL < 5
is (in practical terms) equivalent to FL_REVISION == 88 and that it too
should go therefore.
Regards,
Angus
