Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2003 16:16 schrieb Angus Leeming:
> What I meant was that this 'removal of InsetMinipage/conversion of
> InsetMinipage to InsetBox' is a format change and so should
> 1 be documented
> 2 be placed in its own lyx2lyx files, lyxconvert_228.py and
> lyxrevert_229.py.
'removal
Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Is the attached better?
>
> My opinion?
If you are in the mood...
> Yes.
OK, then I apply this and hope to close the chapter "minipage insets" finally.
Jürgen.
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
>> The bare bones lyxconvert_228.py and lyxrevert_229.py are pointless
>> (as you say). Personally I'd move the conversion code into them.
>> The more of these tiny files we have, the more likely José is to
>> come up with a versioning system that separates file from for
Angus Leeming wrote:
> What I meant was that this 'removal of InsetMinipage/conversion of
> InsetMinipage to InsetBox' is a format change and so should
> 1 be documented
> 2 be placed in its own lyx2lyx files, lyxconvert_228.py and
> lyxrevert_229.py.
Yes, this is certainly much cleaner.
> The ba
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Angus Leeming wrote:
>> Could you increase the LyX format by one please (src/buffer.C) and
>> add a note to this effect in development/FORMAT. To that end, it
>> would probably be best to create new lyxconvert/lyxrevert files
>> too...
>
> I don't quite understand wh
Angus Leeming wrote:
> Could you increase the LyX format by one please (src/buffer.C) and add
> a note to this effect in development/FORMAT. To that end, it would
> probably be best to create new lyxconvert/lyxrevert files too...
I don't quite understand why this is necessary here, but anyway. Can
Angus Leeming wrote:
> Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
>> IMHO Michael's patch could go in now. Can I apply it?
>
> Go for it.
I see you did indeed go for it.
Could you increase the LyX format by one please (src/buffer.C) and add
a note to this effect in development/FORMAT. To that end, it would
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> IMHO Michael's patch could go in now. Can I apply it?
Go for it.
--
Angus
Jose' Matos wrote:
> The code look correct and all the individual converter are self-contained.
> The only thing that could go wrong is come missing import statement, but
> those seem ok.
>
> Does it works?
Yes. It works on Kornel's test file.
> If yes then apply it. :-)
Done. Thanks.
IMHO M
On Monday 29 December 2003 11:20, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Angus Leeming wrote:
> > My opinion? Move it.
>
> I do not much understand lyx2lyx. Is the attached correct?
The code look correct and all the individual converter are self-contained.
The only thing that could go wrong is come miss
Angus Leeming wrote:
> My opinion? Move it.
I do not much understand lyx2lyx. Is the attached correct?
Jürgen.
Index: lyxconvert_224.py
===
RCS file: /usr/local/lyx/cvsroot/lyx-devel/lib/lyx2lyx/lyxconvert_224.py,v
retrieving revisio
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> about bleeding edge file formats or not? (the slution would be easy,
> as proposed by Angus: just move the conversion from
> lyxconvert_224.py to lyxconvert_227.py).
My opinion? Move it.
--
Angus
Michael Schmitt wrote:
> Hm... I think there _is_ a minipage->box conversion available in
> lyxconvert_224.py. Loading a LyX 1.3.4 document works as expected, at
> least. So what exactly is missing?
OK, short summary: The problem is that the minipage->box conversion happens
from 223->224 whil
Michael Schmitt wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
I think this can go in. Don't know what Angus' current plans about
moving the minipage->box conversion from 225 to 228 are, though. So
I'd wait for his vote.
If all this patch does is prevent new Miniboxes being created, then
great. Of course I
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 03:58:52PM +0100, Michael Schmitt spake thusly:
> Enclosed please find a slightly modified patch again the current HEAD
> that "improves" the button label for boxes (the text "parbox" or
> "minipage" alone is a bit misleading UI-wise, especially as you may
> think that m
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
I think this can go in. Don't know what Angus' current plans about
moving the minipage->box conversion from 225 to 228 are, though. So
I'd wait for his vote.
If all this patch does is prevent new Miniboxes being created, then
great. Of course I vote for it to go in. Ho
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Michael Schmitt wrote:
>> already on vacation?
>
> not yet. but I'm packing my bags :-)
>
>> What happened to my patch that removes LFUN_INSET_MINIPAGE and some
>> other unused cruft? I did not follow the discussion in details.
>> What needs to be done to commit thi
Michael Schmitt wrote:
> already on vacation?
not yet. but I'm packing my bags :-)
> What happened to my patch that removes LFUN_INSET_MINIPAGE and some
> other unused cruft? I did not follow the discussion in details. What
> needs to be done to commit this patch?
I think this can go in. Don't k
18 matches
Mail list logo