On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 8:31 AM G. Branden Robinson
wrote:
> It isn't, yet. What you have seen is a Savannah bug report about it.[2]
> It was filed anonymously. ("Who _was_ that masked man?" Dave Kemper, I
> reckon.)
Guilty. I (sometimes) anonymously file tickets in which I have no
personal i
On 13.10.24 15:31, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
[replying only to the lists since you're clearly subscribed, or
otherwise following them]
Hi Joerg,
hi branden,
At 2024-10-13T12:36:23+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote:
On 13.10.24 11:24, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
it seems it would probably b
[replying only to the lists since you're clearly subscribed, or
otherwise following them]
Hi Joerg,
At 2024-10-13T12:36:23+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote:
> On 13.10.24 11:24, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> it seems it would probably be best to just agree to disagree and move
> on, but ...
Where w
On 13.10.24 11:24, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
Hi Joerg,
hi branden,
it seems it would probably be best to just agree to disagree and move on, but
...
At 2024-10-13T11:03:52+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote:
but I really believe the line should never have been deleted in the
first place (
Hi Joerg,
At 2024-10-13T11:03:52+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote:
> but I really believe the line should never have been deleted in the
> first place (I think the working hypothesis should better be "even if
> I do not see why it is there and even if it seems superfluous to me,
> it is there for a
tadziu,
I missed your mail/suggestion regarding reinsertion of the `.ll -8n' request in .XA and only today
became aware of it due to the reverted commit (so too late to confirm that indeed this fixes the
main issue perfectly -- you know that already ;)).
thanks a whole lot for pointing this o
Hi Joerg,
At 2024-10-04T14:49:29+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote:
> attached is an example. I tried to condense it and reduce those
> MHEAD,SHEAD macros to a minimum (they are doing more in my actual
> setup). so the missing SN numbers in the resulting TOC in this example
> are not a bug :).
>
> t
correction regarding the "long entries that do line break do not honour indent": this probably is
technically not a bug since in the original context the entries do have the form
SN[tab]entry
the SN is missing in the example so the entries in fact all start with \t and
when line break occurs
t
On 03.10.24 23:21, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
At 2024-10-03T23:06:18+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote:
table of content when using ms macros (wide entries failing to line
break and "pushing" the page number out of line to the right instead).
I cannot say, however, whether this is a 1.23-related
On Thursday, 3 October 2024 22:18:23 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2024-10-03T20:58:34+0100, Deri wrote:
> > An example is the utp document which a lot of people on this list put
> > together. Neither the original 1.0, producing postscript, nor 1.1,
> > producing a pdf, now build properly, fr
At 2024-10-03T23:06:18+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote:
> table of content when using ms macros (wide entries failing to line
> break and "pushing" the page number out of line to the right instead).
> I cannot say, however, whether this is a 1.23-related issue or whether
> it just has escaped my att
At 2024-10-03T20:58:34+0100, Deri wrote:
> I agree stagnation is not good, but it is undesirable if changes break
> existing documents.
Yes, if something breaks/alters the rendering of an existing document,
it is best if that alteration is offset by a more valuable benefit.
Admittedly, I see pro
On 03.10.24 21:58, Deri wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 October 2024 19:29:26 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
To accept such a restriction is to surrender groff to stagnation. While
I am aware of at least one person for whom that situation is a
preference, I claim that the same can be achieved by neve
On Wednesday, 2 October 2024 19:29:26 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> To accept such a restriction is to surrender groff to stagnation. While
> I am aware of at least one person for whom that situation is a
> preference, I claim that the same can be achieved by never upgrading
> groff from the ve
At 2024-10-02T13:29:28-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> [follow-ups set to groff@gnu, a discussion list]
One point I forgot to mention...
> At 2024-10-02T18:12:06+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote:
> > I was not aware of this change (not following groff development
> > closely) and it took me quit
[follow-ups set to groff@gnu, a discussion list]
Hi Joerg,
At 2024-10-02T18:12:06+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote:
> I was not aware of this change (not following groff development
> closely) and it took me quite a bit of time today to find the root
> course of why some newly compiled old document
16 matches
Mail list logo
