On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 01:27:00AM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 12.04.2016 um 03:58 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>
> >Packagers, please prepare your binaries.
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> I built and tested the tarball with Qt 5.6. Here is the resulting installer:
> http://ftp.lyx.de/LyX%202.2.0RC-1/
Thanks,
Am 12.04.2016 um 03:58 schrieb Scott Kostyshak :
>
> The tar balls and sig files are here:
>
> ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/devel/lyx-2.2/lyx-2.2.0rc1
>
> Packagers, please prepare your binaries.
>
> Non-packagers, please do a quick test of compilation (from the tar ball)
> and basic functionality
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:35:47PM +0100, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote:
> Le 12/04/2016 02:58, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >The tar balls and sig files are here:
> >
> >ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/devel/lyx-2.2/lyx-2.2.0rc1
> >
> >Packagers, please prepare your binaries.
> >
> >Non-packagers, please do
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 09:31:34PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 09/04/16 09:48, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >I'm planning to follow standard practice of specifying the number of
> >minor versions of 2.1 to 5, as below.
>
> What is this used for?
lyx2lyx but not sure what for specifical
Am 12.04.2016 um 03:58 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
Packagers, please prepare your binaries.
Hi Scott,
I built and tested the tarball with Qt 5.6. Here is the resulting installer:
http://ftp.lyx.de/LyX%202.2.0RC-1/
I won't have time to release a Qt 5.5.1 build right now (need some sleep
and won
Am 13.04.2016 um 00:15 schrieb Kornel Benko:
Could you check where the files comes from?
Hi Kornel,
It is the attached file. It is already in the tarball in the folder
~\lib\examples
I see now that it is also in
~\lib\examples
in Git master. Therefore it is in the tarball. I nevertheless won
Am Dienstag, 12. April 2016 um 23:52:04, schrieb Uwe Stöhr
> Am 12.04.2016 um 03:58 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>
> > The tar balls and sig files are here:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/devel/lyx-2.2/lyx-2.2.0rc1
>
> I noticed that we have the files
> - lyx.svgz
> - spellcheck-continously.svgz
Am 12.04.2016 um 03:58 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
The tar balls and sig files are here:
ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/devel/lyx-2.2/lyx-2.2.0rc1
I noticed that we have the files
- lyx.svgz
- spellcheck-continously.svgz
in our Git tree but not in the tarball. Is this correct?
Another issue: In the
Op 12 apr. 2016 22:07 schreef "Vincent van Ravesteijn" :
>
>
> Op 12 apr. 2016 21:29 schreef "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" :
>
> >
> > Le 12/04/16 18:45, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >
> >> So in the commit history of master we will not see the final 2.2.0
> >> release (e.g. fde16219 for 2.1.0)?
> >>
> >>
Le 12/04/16 22:07, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :
> No Vincent did not want that. But since he is away, we can be naughty.
Huh, what?
So you are here lurking, I knew it.
Hello Vincent, I'm glad to read you!
JMarc
Op 12 apr. 2016 21:29 schreef "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" :
>
> Le 12/04/16 18:45, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
>
>> So in the commit history of master we will not see the final 2.2.0
>> release (e.g. fde16219 for 2.1.0)?
>>
>> Have we done this before in this way?
>
>
> No Vincent did not want that. But s
Le 12/04/16 21:33, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
Let's focus on the following options:
A) Branch 2.3.staging from master and continue "unstable" development on
2.3.staging. After 2.2.0 is released we merge 2.3.staging into
master.
B) Branch 2.2.x from master and continue "unstable" development on
m
On 04/12/2016 03:33 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:23:07PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
On 04/12/2016 03:09 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 12/04/16 20:19, Pavel Sanda a �crit :
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
It is your call, anyway.
It or something similar seems like a good
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:23:07PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 04/12/2016 03:09 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >Le 12/04/16 20:19, Pavel Sanda a �crit :
> >>Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> It is your call, anyway.
> >>>
> >>>It or something similar seems like a good idea to me. I just want to
>
Le 09/04/16 09:48, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
I'm planning to follow standard practice of specifying the number of
minor versions of 2.1 to 5, as below.
What is this used for?
JMarc
Le 09/04/16 21:57, Andrew Parsloe a écrit :
A *small* anomaly I've noticed (when reinstalling beta2 after my
bleeding-edge experiments) is that when I change the icon set and click
Save, the icons on the toolbars change to the new set but the icons at
the bottom of the outliner window don't. I ha
Le 12/04/16 18:45, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
So in the commit history of master we will not see the final 2.2.0
release (e.g. fde16219 for 2.1.0)?
Have we done this before in this way?
No Vincent did not want that. But since he is away, we can be naughty.
It or something similar seems like a
On 04/12/2016 03:09 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 12/04/16 20:19, Pavel Sanda a �crit :
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
It is your call, anyway.
It or something similar seems like a good idea to me. I just want to
make sure I understand the details.
One detail you should also understand is that
Le 12/04/16 20:19, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
It is your call, anyway.
It or something similar seems like a good idea to me. I just want to
make sure I understand the details.
One detail you should also understand is that people will pay less
attention to you once master is
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > It is your call, anyway.
>
> It or something similar seems like a good idea to me. I just want to
> make sure I understand the details.
One detail you should also understand is that people will pay less
attention to you once master is free :)
Pavel
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:02:58AM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Non-packagers, please do a quick test of compilation (from the tar ball)
> > and basic functionality on your platform, and let us know how it goes.
>
> It compiles fine on gentoo x86.
> BTW why is tarball 2x
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 06:29:14PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 12/04/16 18:20, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:57:40AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> >>On 04/12/2016 04:42 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>>Le 12/04/2016 04:09, Richard Heck a écrit :
> I prop
Le 12/04/16 18:20, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:57:40AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
On 04/12/2016 04:42 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 12/04/2016 04:09, Richard Heck a écrit :
I propose to create a 2.3.staging branch so development can proceed. We
did this with this
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:57:40AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 04/12/2016 04:42 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 12/04/2016 04:09, Richard Heck a écrit :
> >> I propose to create a 2.3.staging branch so development can proceed. We
> >> did this with this 2.1 cycle. Alternatively, we could
On 04/12/2016 04:42 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 12/04/2016 04:09, Richard Heck a écrit :
>> I propose to create a 2.3.staging branch so development can proceed. We
>> did this with this 2.1 cycle. Alternatively, we could create a
>> 2.2.0.fixes branch, from which 2.2.0 will be tagged, and
Le 12/04/2016 02:58, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
The tar balls and sig files are here:
ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/devel/lyx-2.2/lyx-2.2.0rc1
Packagers, please prepare your binaries.
Non-packagers, please do a quick test of compilation (from the tar ball)
and basic functionality on your platform,
Le 12/04/2016 04:09, Richard Heck a écrit :
I propose to create a 2.3.staging branch so development can proceed. We
did this with this 2.1 cycle. Alternatively, we could create a
2.2.0.fixes branch, from which 2.2.0 will be tagged, and you can have
full control over that.
Why don't we branch 2.
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Non-packagers, please do a quick test of compilation (from the tar ball)
> and basic functionality on your platform, and let us know how it goes.
It compiles fine on gentoo x86.
BTW why is tarball 2x bigger than for 2.1?
Pavel
28 matches
Mail list logo
