On 2016-01-31, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 31.01.2016 um 12:12 schrieb Georg Baum:
> And here is what I still did not understand:
> I can run lyx2lyx via a fileformat to change the document class to the
> new agutex version.
I understood it differently:
* there is a documentclass with 2 incompatibl
Am 29.01.2016 um 01:30 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
Attached is a patch to fix bug http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/8712.
Scott or anyone else, can this go in?
If So this is in my opinion also safe to be backported.
thanks and regards
Uwe
Am 31.01.2016 um 12:12 schrieb Georg Baum:
Sorry, this is a completely different topic. If you want such a procedure,
make a suggestion how it should look like, who is going to implement it and
how it is supposed to be maintained. Currently we do not have it, and layout
files are only updated wh
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 01:36:04AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 30.01.2016 um 00:32 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>
> >Tests seem
> >to be failing for others but not for you.
>
> As Kornel wrote, he used a wrong version of siggraph. Now it works for him
> and Günter reported the same.
I thought they
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 01:38:14AM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 27.01.2016 um 02:15 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
>
> >If you like, I can
> >add a fileformat change to update existing AGUTeX files to the new class
> >file. If you want this, this should be done before the beta release.
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> do
Le 31/01/2016 15:55, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :
Well I guess you send a PDF and they do not care with which version of
the class it has been made...
Are you joking?
I admit that my answer was only mildly useful. I apologize for that, but
this discussion is a bit strange anyway.
One has to use no
Am 30.01.2016 um 23:20 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
Le 30/01/2016 20:55, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :
Here we disagree.
Then please tell me how I should submit a paper to an ACM siggraph
conference with LyX 2.1.4.
Well I guess you send a PDF and they do not care with which version of
the class it h
Am Sonntag, 31. Januar 2016 um 13:25:07, schrieb Georg Baum
> Kornel Benko wrote:
>
> > Am Sonntag, 31. Januar 2016 um 11:49:56, schrieb Georg Baum
> >>
> >> I suggested to do this renaming automatically in lyx2lyx.
> >
> > Hm, OK, but this change is only partly dependent on lyx version. What
Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 31. Januar 2016 um 11:49:56, schrieb Georg Baum
>>
>> I suggested to do this renaming automatically in lyx2lyx.
>
> Hm, OK, but this change is only partly dependent on lyx version. What
> matters is the tex + layout combination. Making the renaming in lyx2lyx
>
Am Sonntag, 31. Januar 2016 um 11:49:56, schrieb Georg Baum
> Guenter Milde wrote:
>
> > On 2016-01-30, Kornel Benko wrote:
> >> Am Samstag, 30. Januar 2016 um 10:40:23, schrieb Georg Baum
> >>
> >
> >>> We can discuss this, but it is also very easy to provide a layout file
> >>> for the new v
Stephan Witt wrote:
> After applying the patches I get:
>
> $ (cd lyx-build/cmake/2.2.0dev;ctest -C debug -R tex2lyx)
> Test project /Users/stephan/git/lyx-build/cmake/2.2.0dev
>
> …
>
> 86% tests passed, 4 tests failed out of 28
>
> Label Time Summary:
> cmplyx = 21.45 sec (14 tests)
>
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> If we had a description of what the problem is/was, it would be easier.
> The cls file only says:
>
> % - version 0.92 2015/11/04 Boris Veytsman
> % - Added new copyright, conference info and doi commands
>
> This does not look very scary to me.
Apart from that t
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 30.01.2016 um 10:40 schrieb Georg Baum:
>
>>> I was arguing against this but the majority decided to go that way. But
>>> nothing happened.
>>
>> What did you expect to happen?
>
> Well, a democratic decision was made and I of course accepted this. But
> then nothing else h
Am 29.01.2016 um 22:15 schrieb Georg Baum :
>
> Stephan Witt wrote:
>
>> Am 24.01.2016 um 19:08 schrieb Georg Baum
>> :
>>>
>>> This is the idea, yes, but before implementing it I'd like to know
>>> whether it works in principle. This would require a two step approach for
>>> the case that no co
Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2016-01-30, Kornel Benko wrote:
>> Am Samstag, 30. Januar 2016 um 10:40:23, schrieb Georg Baum
>>
>
>>> We can discuss this, but it is also very easy to provide a layout file
>>> for the new version in parallel to the old one. For example, I would
>>> very likely give a
15 matches
Mail list logo
