On 2010-02-01, José Matos wrote:
> On Friday 29 January 2010 22:38:05 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> So I propose to rename it to 0.19 because we have always evolved and
> never had any real revolution.
We had the transition to Unicode but missed it (version number wise).
> LyX 1.6.x is a different beast
On Monday 01 February 2010 12:36:45 Steve Litt wrote:
> Depends on the user. A lot of us read and create LyX programmatically or
> with a text editor.
I am well aware of that, and appendix of my PhD thesis was created that way.
:-)
I have used a python program to generate the whole lyx file and
On Monday 01 February 2010 06:44:29 José Matos wrote:
> On Monday 01 February 2010 11:17:54 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > I don't insist on 2.0. I only think to make the jump to 2.0 now is
> > without a reason. We missed the chance to name it 2.0 when releasing
> > 1.6, so why should we do it now. Assum
On Monday 01 February 2010 11:17:54 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> I don't insist on 2.0. I only think to make the jump to 2.0 now is without
> a reason. We missed the chance to name it 2.0 when releasing 1.6, so why
> should we do it now. Assume we introduce a new file-format,would we relase
> 3.0 then?
José Matos wrote:
> On Friday 29 January 2010 22:38:05 Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Read the "Table of contents" at
>> http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX20
>>
>> most looks like "bug/missing-feature" fixing. This is maybe
>> only my perception, but imagine a "non-hacker/user-only" reads
>> this list, he wo
On Friday 29 January 2010 22:38:05 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Read the "Table of contents" at
> http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX20
>
> most looks like "bug/missing-feature" fixing. This is maybe
> only my perception, but imagine a "non-hacker/user-only" reads
> this list, he would wonder why we've deci
Am Freitag, den 29.01.2010, 22:55 +0100 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:>
> >
> What revolution do you expect for 2.0 then ? (or are we back at the
> XML-thing now ?)
Read the "Table of contents" at
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX20
most looks like "bug/missing-feature" fixing. This is maybe
Peter Kümmel schreef:
Am Freitag, den 29.01.2010, 18:30 + schrieb José Matos:
On Friday 15 January 2010 19:42:30 Pavel Sanda wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Any other opinions suggestions?
- please do some definitive decision about version number now.
i have ask
Am Freitag, den 29.01.2010, 18:30 + schrieb José Matos:
> On Friday 15 January 2010 19:42:30 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > José Matos wrote:
> > > Any other opinions suggestions?
> >
> > - please do some definitive decision about version number now.
> > i have asked about the opinions few days ag
On Friday 15 January 2010 19:42:30 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
> > Any other opinions suggestions?
>
> - please do some definitive decision about version number now.
> i have asked about the opinions few days ago, whoever has something
> to say got his chance. the result was 2:1
On Friday 15 January 2010 16:54:15 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> José Matos writes:
> > Any other opinions suggestions?
>
> I guess the question is what we need before alpha 1. One thing I would
> like to see (at least before real release) is a ui2ui/bind2bind/rc2rc
> infrastructure. If some
José Matos wrote:
> Any other opinions suggestions?
- please do some definitive decision about version number now.
i have asked about the opinions few days ago, whoever has something
to say got his chance. the result was 2:1 for 1.7 so you have the
royal choice :)
- i miss some gener
José Matos writes:
> Any other opinions suggestions?
I guess the question is what we need before alpha 1. One thing I would
like to see (at least before real release) is a ui2ui/bind2bind/rc2rc
infrastructure. If some nice python hacker (hint!) were to provide the
functionality, we could do
Hi all,
trying to synthesize the different threads we had this week it seems
that
there is a consensus that we are ready (^H late) to release the first alpha.
As it is usual with the alpha stage this means that lyx builds (and
hopefully works) on our support platforms. Those pla
14 matches
Mail list logo
