On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 12:46:58PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 09/05/2017 07:25 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > I have not seen many bugs that have been reported regarding 2.3.0beta1. > > I would like to know whether this means that 2.3.0beta1 can be > > considered stable, which is what I believe, or whether it is just that > > not many people have tested it and that is why there have not been many > > bug reports. > > > > If you've tested, it would be useful if you just respond with e.g. "yes > > I briefly tested and didn't find any issues". > > Hi, Scott, > > I've been using master extensively over the last couple months, and > other than bugs I've reported I've had no problems at all. I actually > started doing it because I actually needed some of the new features, > e.g., biblatex support, some of the changes to the citation dialog, > inverted branches.
Good to know. I have also been using master and have not found problems. > > If you're interested in testing, please back up all of your files. > > Yes, we should all do that, but just in case.... > > If any file from an earlier version of LyX is opened *and saved* with > any version of 2.3.0, then the original file will automatically be > backed up. The backup file will be found in the backup directory, if one > is set under Tools> Preferences> Paths, or else in the same folder as > the original file, if no backup directory is set. The filename of the > backup file will be: > ORIGNAME-lyxformat-NUM.lyx~ > where NUM is the LyX format number of the original file. In the case of > 2.2.x file, this will be 508, but in the case of older files it will be > different. > > Scott, it might actually be a good idea to include this information in > the 2.3.0-ish announcements. People often ask what these files are, and > it's obviously good for people to konw they exist. Good idea. Done for master at ee4e5c7b and for 2.3.x at 177331a0. Scott
