On Friday 13 December 2002 11:01 am, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Angus> You saw my posting to the xforms list in which I asked how the > Angus> future would pan out. I think that it can be summarised as > Angus> "interested but no time for active development". That means > Angus> also that anyone interested in fixing the bugs in the xforms > Angus> source should make absolutely sure that those fixes don't > Angus> actually break things. > > What I meant is that alternative trees like what happens for linux > kernels could be OK, but only as long as there is a strong commitment > to contribute back to xforms as soon as possible. In particular, I do > not think that we should include xforms in the lyx cvs tree and force > everyone to use that, but rather make sure that LyX also works with > 'plain' xforms.
Agreed. Lars is suggesting setting up an entirely separate tree. I anticipate having #ifdefs in LyX's xforms frontend for the foreseeable future. Having said that, did we come to a consensual view on what version of xforms to support in LyX 1.3? I'd prefer to throw out both 0.88 and 0.89. The former because it's really old and doesn't have image support. The latter because there is no clean separation between 0.88 and 0.89. The functionality comes with 0.89.5. It seems ridiculous to have to justifying that to a user of 0.89.2 for which no other 0.89 binary was released. Justifying use of 1.0 can be done on both political as well as practical grounds. Shall I just go ahead and strip the #ifdefs out? -- Angus
