On 11/08/2011 11:29 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
and btw its worth to check your email client documentation. it might have
function for reply-to-list, which just picks-up the correct To: for the mailing
list you read without manual editing addresses
+
Peter, I'd also consider using news server that
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:04:43PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >> You can do something about it yourself.
> >
> > I don't understand. How could I prevent you to send me a private email?
>
> i lost my battle for this long time ago :)
> functional solution is to set in header o
Le 08/11/11 21:37, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
On 07/11/2011 10:22, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
Hi,
I just "enjoyed" extending the Find Advanced feature to exploit
multi-cores.
What about enjoying to implement the correct solution for the advanced
find feature? I'm sure you'll much more fun :-P
Stephan Witt wrote:
> I have to edit most of the to addresses of my replies and my reply to field
> too.
and btw its worth to check your email client documentation. it might have
function for reply-to-list, which just picks-up the correct To: for the mailing
list you read without manual editing a
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> in mutt just use: folder-hook lyx-mail-folder my_hdr Reply-To:
> your_addr...@lyx.org
errr... folder-hook lyx-mail-folder my_hdr Reply-To: lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
p
Stephan Witt wrote:
> I have to edit most of the to addresses of my replies and my reply to field
> too.
> AFAICS, only Pavel is one of the rare people sending mails with the "correct"
> reply to.
unfortunately no. not correct, its highly unusual to rewrite reply-to. but
since i was not able to
Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> You can do something about it yourself.
>
> I don't understand. How could I prevent you to send me a private email?
i lost my battle for this long time ago :)
functional solution is to set in header of outgoing messages: Reply-To:
lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
its not correct, a
Am 08.11.2011 um 22:40 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> On 08/11/2011 22:10, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> On 08.11.2011 22:07, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>>> Op 8-11-2011 22:03, Peter Kümmel schreef:
On 08.11.2011 21:59, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> Op 8-11-2011 21:48, Peter Kümmel schreef:
>
On 08/11/2011 22:10, Peter Kümmel wrote:
On 08.11.2011 22:07, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Op 8-11-2011 22:03, Peter Kümmel schreef:
On 08.11.2011 21:59, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Op 8-11-2011 21:48, Peter Kümmel schreef:
Is it still necessary to disable the reply function for this list?
On 08.11.2011 22:07, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Op 8-11-2011 22:03, Peter Kümmel schreef:
On 08.11.2011 21:59, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Op 8-11-2011 21:48, Peter Kümmel schreef:
Is it still necessary to disable the reply function for this list?
Most people are now used to press "reply
Op 8-11-2011 22:03, Peter Kümmel schreef:
On 08.11.2011 21:59, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Op 8-11-2011 21:48, Peter Kümmel schreef:
Is it still necessary to disable the reply function for this list?
Most people are now used to press "reply all" which only
produces unneeded duplicates.
Pete
On 08.11.2011 21:59, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Op 8-11-2011 21:48, Peter Kümmel schreef:
Is it still necessary to disable the reply function for this list?
Most people are now used to press "reply all" which only
produces unneeded duplicates.
Peter
I don't understand what the problem is
Op 8-11-2011 21:48, Peter Kümmel schreef:
Is it still necessary to disable the reply function for this list?
Most people are now used to press "reply all" which only
produces unneeded duplicates.
Peter
I don't understand what the problem is of "reply all".
To prevent duplication you either s
Send it again, just demonstrate all subscribers how 'useful' these duplicates
are.
--
Is it still necessary to disable the reply function for this list?
Most people are now used to press "reply all" which only
produces unneeded duplicates.
Peter
Is it still necessary to disable the reply function for this list?
Most people are now used to press "reply all" which only
produces unneeded duplicates.
Peter
On 07/11/2011 10:22, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
Hi,
I just "enjoyed" extending the Find Advanced feature to exploit
multi-cores.
What about enjoying to implement the correct solution for the advanced
find feature? I'm sure you'll much more fun :-P
It exploits QThreadPool to create "worker" t
Some version of this strategy seems necessary, since one possible reason
to want to stop the export thread is that one of the converters is in an
infinite loop. Since we depend on external converters, this kind of
thing can easily happen and not be under our control. (Of course none of
the LyX c
Why could I not export the UserGuide from a trunk build on Windows?
I always get these errors:
! LaTeX Error: Command \DH unavailable in encoding OT1.
! LaTeX Error: Command \dh unavailable in encoding OT1.
Is it my fault?
Peter
Il 08/11/2011 18:43, Vincent van Ravesteijn ha scritto:
Op 8-11-2011 0:46, Tommaso Cucinotta schreef:
Any opinion against committing this patch that uses a mutex for
synchronizing LYXERR() output across multiple threads ?
I don't see an absolute need for it. For now, we don't even use
thread
Op 8-11-2011 0:46, Tommaso Cucinotta schreef:
Il 07/11/2011 14:46, Tommaso Cucinotta ha scritto:
However, now I broke compilation of lyxclient which complains with
errors about not knowing anything about #include and you
can imagine what else...
this is fixed in the attached refined version
On 11/06/2011 05:05 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> Op 5-11-2011 23:00, Abdelrazak Younes schreef:
>> On 05/11/2011 18:25, Richard Heck wrote:
>>> On 11/05/2011 11:50 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
On 05/11/2011 16:44, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 11/05/2011 03:12 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn
21 matches
Mail list logo
