On 06-Mar-2001 Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Perhaps I should just keep my big mouth shut.
Why I think you're principally right! But think of this in developement.
While a tree is in development a lot of internal changes happen and noone
is using all of the frontends just the default frontend. Maybe on
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 08:29:06PM +0100, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > > which frontend
> > > will be the default case? I can't imagine that this will be xforms.
> >
> > probably yes
>
>
> Wasn't Charles Darwin British John?
As we say in Portugal "In blacksmith's house, roasting stip of wood".
S
* Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010306 21:56]:
> Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Moreover, if people change the way functions/members are called I think they
> | should change ALL calls to these functions/members and not only those in
> | their favourite frontend!
>
>
> > which frontend
> > will be the default case? I can't imagine that this will be xforms.
>
> probably yes
Wasn't Charles Darwin British John?
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > | Moreover, if people change the way functions/members are called I think
> > | they should change ALL calls to these functions/members and not only
> > | those in their favourite frontend!
> >
> > I just make sure that the default case compiles.
>
> B
> | Moreover, if people change the way functions/members are called I think
> | they should change ALL calls to these functions/members and not only
> | those in their favourite frontend!
>
> I just make sure that the default case compiles.
But the default case isn't that qt2? :)
I guess that wi
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| sure, and being a good neighbour is strictly optional. I don't know about
| you but I would rather have Lars spend time on the kernel than fiddle about
| in the frontends
Me too :-)
Lgb
Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Moreover, if people change the way functions/members are called I think they
| should change ALL calls to these functions/members and not only those in
| their favourite frontend!
I just make sure that the default case compiles.
| Having one central
> sure, and being a good neighbour is strictly optional.
but very desirable.
> I don't know about
> you but I would rather have Lars spend time on the kernel than fiddle about
> in the frontends
I fully agree, thats why we need this stuff in *one* place yesterday and in
the meantime people sh
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > This message is contained within src/frontends/xforms/ChangeLog ...
>
> Suppose I want some new find/replace functionality and change the way the
> search function is called. After implementing the changes in the qt2
> frontend I can leave it at tha
> This message is contained within src/frontends/xforms/ChangeLog ...
Suppose I want some new find/replace functionality and change the way the
search function is called. After implementing the changes in the qt2
frontend I can leave it at that and think: well the xforms, kdes and gnomes
will
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > > Moreover, if people change the way functions/members are called I think
> > > they should change ALL calls to these functions/members and not only
> > > those in their favourite frontend!
> >
> > but this obviously doesn't make sense for any sizeable
> > Moreover, if people change the way functions/members are called I think
> > they should change ALL calls to these functions/members and not only
> > those in their favourite frontend!
>
> but this obviously doesn't make sense for any sizeable change (you can't
> expect those lyx kernel propell
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> As an example: the changes to FormParagraph just commited by Lars. These are
> needed by ALL frontends (I think). It's undoable to watch cvs 24 hours a day
> to see whether something has been changed in frontend A that should change in
> frontend B as
> | Similarly, should I make a patch of BRANCH_MVC against HEAD yet or are
> | people still looking at the branch?
>
> I have not had time to look at it again yet.
>
> (and I still have not seen any reports form others that have tried it)
I just checked this out of cvs, but I just want to mention
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tuesday 06 March 2001 12:33, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | Similarly, should I make a patch of BRANCH_MVC against HEAD
| > | yet or are people still looking at the branch?
|
| > I have not had time to look at it again yet.
|
| Fair enough. Just
On Tuesday 06 March 2001 12:33, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Similarly, should I make a patch of BRANCH_MVC against HEAD
> | yet or are people still looking at the branch?
> I have not had time to look at it again yet.
Fair enough. Just give me a shout when you're ready. I'll keep the branch
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tuesday 06 March 2001 11:55, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | Is there anything really wrong with the patch ? If I rediff
| > | will it be applied ?
| >
| > I still belive it changes too much... but g
On Tuesday 06 March 2001 11:55, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Is there anything really wrong with the patch ? If I rediff
> | will it be applied ?
>
> I still belive it changes too much... but give us a rediff...
Similarly, should I make a patch of B
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Is there anything really wrong with the patch ? If I rediff
| will it be applied ?
I still belive it changes too much... but give us a rediff...
Lgb
Is there anything really wrong with the patch ? If I rediff
will it be applied ?
thanks
john
--
"If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out."
- Oscar Wilde
21 matches
Mail list logo
