Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| 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?
Would be nice to have some real binary dists of XFroms 1.0 first.
and I have a hard time deciding on this one... that xforms 0.88 is out
is clear, that we should also ditch 0.89 less so.
--
Lgb
