On 07/02/2015 03:24 PM, Benedict Holland wrote:
Just curious, why are we testing old versions of an application with
known catastrophic bugs? Wasn't the uncorrupted save feature
implemented in the 2.1 branch? Also, I have been using the 2.1.3
exclusively for a long time and I admit that I am a
On 2015-06-30, Georg Baum wrote:
> Guenter Milde wrote:
>> On 2015-06-26, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>>> 2015-06-26 16:44 GMT+02:00 Guenter Milde :
Please don't check for unencodable characters in comments.
>>> It's still invalid encoding, since the output file contains invalid
>>> glyphs (no
Just curious, why are we testing old versions of an application with known
catastrophic bugs? Wasn't the uncorrupted save feature implemented in the
2.1 branch? Also, I have been using the 2.1.3 exclusively for a long time
and I admit that I am a power user. It is stable as anything I use and when
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Ubuntu trusty 14.04, the long term support version, currently only has LyX
> 2.0.6. While it is not possible in a LTS version to upgrade to the latest
> LyX version[*], it has been decided to update to the latest 2.0.x ve
Am Mittwoch, 1. Juli 2015 um 23:32:01, schrieb Guy Rutenberg
> Hi Pavel,
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
> > Guy,
> > while you are around, could you please check translation of the four new
> > strings
> > we introduced for lyx 2.1, they are directly used in latex w
Dear all,
Ubuntu trusty 14.04, the long term support version, currently only has
LyX 2.0.6. While it is not possible in a LTS version to upgrade to the
latest LyX version[*], it has been decided to update to the latest 2.0.x
version, that is 2.0.8.1.
This is now accessible in the proposed ch
