Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

>> Right now, after more people have been involved in the discussion, I >> have accepted Pavel's way of describing the problem: Embedding >> encourages sharing of lyx documents and exaggerates an existing >> problem. Even so, it is generally agreed that such information is too >> important to put i

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

On Wednesday 21 May 2008 04:11:13 Bo Peng wrote: > > 1) I made my decision clear during the whole process, I would accept the > > embedding subject to some conditions, one of the major conditions was the > > privacy/security issue. > > > > I have explained in several messages what I meant. You keep

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

> Please correct me if I am wrong Jose but I'd like to clarify that Jose never > committed to be _the_ project manager. He committed to be the _release_ > manager. My apology again to Jose. > It looks to me that the project management is now handled in an > informal collegial way. Then my judgme

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

José Matos wrote: On Wednesday 21 May 2008 08:29:55 Abdelrazak Younes wrote: That being said, now that we are, or should be, in release focus mode, Jose has of course a proeminent role to play; he is the one who decides what goes in or not. But Jose, pretty please, we need some interim releas

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

On Wednesday 21 May 2008 08:29:55 Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > That being said, now that we are, or should be, in release focus mode, > Jose has of course a proeminent role to play; he is the one who decides > what goes in or not. But Jose, pretty please, we need some interim > releases! Quite frankl

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

Bo Peng wrote: However, although there is no definition for the role of a project manager of an open source project, I suspect that you are somehow responsible for maintaining a pleasant environment for the development process. When a discussion went wild on a day other than Friday, you may need

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

> 1) I made my decision clear during the whole process, I would accept the > embedding subject to some conditions, one of the major conditions was the > privacy/security issue. > > I have explained in several messages what I meant. You keep refusing the > existence of any problem without taking a c

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

On Tuesday 20 May 2008 20:13:43 Bo Peng wrote: > I do not understand Jose's role either. During the long discussions, I > called for him a few times to make a decision. Whatever that decision > would be, it would  certainly be better than allowing such discussions > to last forever and eventually h

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

> Yes. I do not understand why you do not simply decide that embedding will > not be part of 1.6.0. > Period. > No discussion. I do not understand Jose's role either. During the long discussions, I called for him a few times to make a decision. Whatever that decision would be, it would certainly

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

Prolog: I had a very coarse look at this discussion and therefore I certainly see only a part of the picture. I am not going to take part in the discussion either. But sometimes a view from outside is useful, and therefore I wrote the comments below. Please ignore them if you think that they are no

The only way to continue. Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

> You mean "I am OK about forgetting about this stuff, as long as we > only forget about Richard's proposal"? I would work with Richard on his proposal if it is not based on the filename.lyxdir idea. Global or individual embedding is not an obstacle for me. I consider Richard's proposal intrusive

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

> I might add: we (and and I mean all of us, including the best developers on > this list) improve our skills by listening to each other argumentation. And > I am not talking only about coding skills. Proper code review is > sufficiently rare that one should appreciate it when it comes. Source code

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

Abdelrazak Younes wrote: I might add: we (and and I mean all of us, including the best developers on this list) improve our skills by listening to each other argumentation. And I am not talking only about coding skills. Proper code review is sufficiently rare that one should appreciate it when

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

On Monday 19 May 2008 20:25:37 Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > Anyway, I guess I can safely assume that Richard's approach will not > > be part of 1.6.0. > > Sorry Bo but I have to say that you've been being unfair to Richard in > general. He had the pugnacity (or should I say stoicity?) to continue >

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Bennett Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I'm afraid I have to join this discussion again. I must say that I agree >> with Abdel here, and Bo's reply just reinforces Abdel's point. > > Now we know what philosophers are good for :) This was

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

"Bennett Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm afraid I have to join this discussion again. I must say that I agree > with Abdel here, and Bo's reply just reinforces Abdel's point. Now we know what philosophers are good for :) JMarc

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anyway, I guess I can safely assume that Richard's approach will not > be part of 1.6.0. You mean "I am OK about forgetting about this stuff, as long as we only forget about Richard's proposal"? How come we are not yet beyond this "his proposal, my propos

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

Bo Peng wrote Which reminds me that there are some critical bugs related to 'listings' that needs fixing ;-) Bug numbers, please. I just noticed that view source is not working though. At least those two: http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4607 http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cg

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

Bennett Helm wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Sorry Bo but I have to say that you've been being unfair to Richard in > general. He had the pugnacity (or should I say stoicity?) to continue the > discussio

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

Bo Peng wrote: > I have seen Jurgen and Abdel's emails so I guess I do not have to wait > for a week. Jurgen and Abdel was only partly right because my > implementation is more or less done and can be made ready for 1.6.0. I'm not sure about that. The discussions revealed that people do not trust

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm afraid I have to join this discussion again. I must say that I agree > > with Abdel here, and Bo's reply just reinforces Abdel's point. > > Bennett, > > I have pointed out quite a few times that I would agree with Richard

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

> I'm afraid I have to join this discussion again. I must say that I agree > with Abdel here, and Bo's reply just reinforces Abdel's point. Bennett, I have pointed out quite a few times that I would agree with Richard's proposal as long as it can be implemented in a non-intrusive way. That is to

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry Bo but I have to say that you've been being unfair to Richard in > > general. He had the pugnacity (or should I say stoicity?) to continue the > > discussion regardless of your repeated critiscisms and I think you should

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

> by quick denial of any problem I pointed out with a proper explanation. Of course I meant 'without'. Bo

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

> Sorry Bo but I have to say that you've been being unfair to Richard in > general. He had the pugnacity (or should I say stoicity?) to continue the > discussion regardless of your repeated critiscisms and I think you should > respect that. If his proposal is as good as he claimed, how could I pos

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

Bo Peng wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Pavel Sanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you guys feel that neither proposal should be implemented for 1.6.0, I will not complain. thats exactly my feeling now. I have seen Jurgen and Abdel's emails so I guess I do not have to w

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Pavel Sanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If you guys feel that neither proposal should be >> implemented for 1.6.0, I will not complain. > > thats exactly my feeling now. I have seen Jurgen and Abdel's emails so I guess I do not have to wait for a week. Jurgen an

Re: End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

> If you guys feel that neither proposal should be > implemented for 1.6.0, I will not complain. thats exactly my feeling now. my proposal is to let the whole embedding issue sleep for some months and let everybody relax from the state now. time sometimes bring new insights; i just stepped for a

End of the embedding discussion, at least with Richard.

Dear all, Richard and I have argued about this embedding feature for a long time. It bored both of us, actually all developers. Now that Richard has signed off (http://wiki.lyx.org/Devel/BundleSuggestions#toc2), I can finally free myself from this torturous experience. The most recent snapshot of