Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Sorry for being off-topic: Ralph, do you ever get mails from me sent to you privately? I tried it a few times, and I never got a response, so I now have the feeling that I'm somehow filtered out by your email system. Werner ___ Groff mailing lis

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Hi Larry and Larry, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:54:29PM -0500, Larry Kollar wrote: > > > Larry K., have you found a new CVS host for the UTP meanwhile? > > > Have you finally announced the UTP on the various lists? Maybe we > > > can find volunteers more easily if more people

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Since this comes from bitmover.com it doesn't carry a lot of wheight :-) ... And I would really argue that subversion in conjunction with svk is a MUCH better technical solution, you get the central repository, and distributed repository with three way merge and most of the familiar commands

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Larry McVoy wrote: [blah, blah] 1. Where is the open source client *source code* at the website? I can't find it. http://www.bitmover.com/bk-client.shar And no indication of it in your website whatsoever. 2. Where is the open source license? In the source files. It's basically a BSD

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote: > >>Subverson were better technical choices, you just imposed your fears and > >>biases upon my words. I merely said *better choices*. > > > >Yes, you say that but you don't say why. As far as I can tell this is just > >FUD

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Larry McVoy wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:50:39PM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote: I never said CVS or Subverson were better technical choices, you just imposed your fears and biases upon my words. I merely said *better choices*. Yes, you say that but you don't say why. As far

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:50:39PM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote: > I never said CVS or > Subverson were better technical choices, you just imposed your fears and > biases upon my words. I merely said *better choices*. Yes, you say that but you don't say why. As far as I can tell this i

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Larry McVoy wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:51:48AM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote: IMO, CVS and Subversion are better choices. Have you read ? That's a religious argument, not a technical one. Show me one example of someone saying that CVS or Subve

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:51:48AM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote: > IMO, CVS and Subversion are better choices. Have you read > ? That's a religious argument, not a technical one. Show me one example of someone saying that CVS or Subversion are better techn

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

> > I ran into the same problem, before noticing in the ChangeLog that > > texinfo *4.8* is now required. > > Indeed, as Robert points out, texinfo 4.8 is now required; but also, > IIRC, it had been previously been noted that 4.7 should *not* be > used, because of a bug -- before the step up to 4.

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

> Indeed, as Robert points out, texinfo 4.8 is now required; but also, > IIRC, it had been previously been noted that 4.7 should *not* be > used, because of a bug -- before the step up to 4.8, you had to use > 4.6. Your use of 4.7 was always doomed to failure. It has been shown that groff.texinf

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Larry Kollar wrote: Larry K., have you found a new CVS host for the UTP meanwhile? Have you finally announced the UTP on the various lists? Maybe we can find volunteers more easily if more people know of its existence... No, and no. Larry McVoy has offered Bitkeeper, and I'm going to take him u

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:54:29PM -0500, Larry Kollar wrote: > > >Larry K., have you found a new CVS host for the UTP meanwhile? Have > >you finally announced the UTP on the various lists? Maybe we can find > >volunteers more easily if more people know of its existence... > > No, and no. Larry

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Larry K., have you found a new CVS host for the UTP meanwhile? Have you finally announced the UTP on the various lists? Maybe we can find volunteers more easily if more people know of its existence... No, and no. Larry McVoy has offered Bitkeeper, and I'm going to take him up on it once I take t

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Monday 14 March 2005 9:08 pm, Robert Goulding wrote: > On Mar 14, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Dorai Sitaram wrote: > > I don't mind (too much) that the groff doc is currently in texinfo, but > > does groff.texinfo convert into Info or HTML for anybody? It must, I > > know, > > so what is the magic? > > >

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Mar 14, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Dorai Sitaram wrote: I don't mind (too much) that the groff doc is currently in texinfo, but does groff.texinfo convert into Info or HTML for anybody? It must, I know, so what is the magic? It consistently fails to for me, and I have texinfo and makeinfo 4.7 (and th

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

I don't mind (too much) that the groff doc is currently in texinfo, but does groff.texinfo convert into Info or HTML for anybody? It must, I know, so what is the magic? It consistently fails to for me, and I have texinfo and makeinfo 4.7 (and the groff dist asks for at least 4.6, so I know I'm no

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Mar 14, 2005, at 4:50 AM, Meg McRoberts wrote: I've also found that the cross-ref macros in -mm are easily detachable. I posted a version adapted to -ms here some time back; you should be able to find them with a little searching for my name in the archive! They work fine; I wrote an artic

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

> Like I said, I'm willing to fund some work and maybe Ted H. is the > right guy. I'd like to see a new release of the docs: *roff > reference & user guide, pic/tbl/eqn/etc, macro packages, etc. To have groff documentation in info format has a) historical reasons -- there already was a groff.tex

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

> I've also found that the cross-ref macros in -mm are easily detachable. I > posted a version adapted to -ms here some time back; you should be able to > find > them with a little searching for my name in the archive! They work fine; I > wrote an article using -ms and the adapted -mm macros, w

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

[stuff about cross reference] As an aside, I'm really pleased with all the activity around groff and macro packages, etc. I think the biggest thing we need is to start capturing all of this in printable docs. Like I said, I'm willing to fund some work and maybe Ted H. is the right guy. I'd like

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

Quoting Jon Snader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:17:45AM -0500, Peter Schaffter wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2005, Jon Snader wrote: > > > I do have cross reference macros that I use for my books. > > > > > Peter, if you'd like to include them in mom or use them as a > > > start

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Saturday 12 March 2005 6:59 pm, Jon Snader wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:17:45AM -0500, Peter Schaffter wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2005, Jon Snader wrote: > > > I do have cross reference macros that I use for my books. > > > > > > > > > Peter, if you'd like to include them in mom or use t

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:17:45AM -0500, Peter Schaffter wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2005, Jon Snader wrote: > > I do have cross reference macros that I use for my books. > > > Peter, if you'd like to include them in mom or use them as a > > starting point, you're more than welcome--just let me know

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Sat, Mar 12, 2005, Jon Snader wrote: > I do have cross reference macros that I use for my books. > Peter, if you'd like to include them in mom or use them as a > starting point, you're more than welcome--just let me know. Please, pass them along. -- Peter Schaffter Author of _The Schumann

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 08:18:44PM -0500, Peter Schaffter wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005, Mats Broberg wrote: > > Since I don't know much about groff yet, this may be a uninformed > > question - but is it possible to use e.g. other listmembers' specific > > macros for crossreferences together with m

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005, Mats Broberg wrote: > Since I don't know much about groff yet, this may be a uninformed > question - but is it possible to use e.g. other listmembers' specific > macros for crossreferences together with mom? I browsed the archives > and found out that e.g. Jon Snader has som

RE: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

> > Btw, I think I read somewhere that groff never ever hyphenates the > > last word on a page. Is that true? I guess that makes the > guys over at > > comp.text.tex envious. There are quite a few threads about > how to make > > TeX & Children succeed with that...! > > Don't draw premature co

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

> Btw, I think I read somewhere that groff never ever hyphenates > the last word on a page. Is that true? I guess that makes the > guys over at comp.text.tex envious. There are quite a few > threads about how to make TeX & Children succeed with that...! Don't draw premature conclusions from this

RE: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

> The mom macros came into being primarily to serve the needs > of typesetters and non-technical writers. I realized that > would be annoying to technical writers who liked mom but > needed greater functionality (floats and keeps, > cross-referencing, nested footnotes, etc.), but no more > an

Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005, Mats Broberg wrote: > > Indeed. AFAIK, groff can't measure the width of serifs. > > Besides, IMO, adjusting a dropcap for protruding serifs isn't > > a science; it's a complex judgment call. > > I agree. What I meant was that if protruding of drop caps was possible, > one