[self-follow-up]
At 2024-10-03T20:53:05-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2024-10-04T01:17:53+0100, Deri wrote:
> > > > Various problems occur using current git groff, from extra blank
> > > > pages, text which was set as mono spaced appearing as
> > > > Times-Roman, pdf bookmarks jumping to t
[self-follow-up]
At 2024-10-03T20:53:05-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The switch to Times-Roman from the requested mono-spaced font is down
> > to commit 1d8452fb2ae3afd9bb8cb8a7f7f31741d41e85da.
>
> I'll need to see what the document is asking for, then (I confess I
> haven't paid attenti
Hi Deri,
At 2024-10-04T01:17:53+0100, Deri wrote:
> 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 posts
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
On 02.10.24 20:29, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
[follow-ups set to groff@gnu, a discussion list]
Hi Joerg,
hi branden,
thanks for bothering to reply so thoroughly. I have interspersed a few comments below but up front
just this: I principally regard changes breaking backward compatibility i
