On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:01:53PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> > I took a look and this looks good so far and a bit simpler than what I
> > thought would be necessary but I haven't tried to test it yet.
> >
>
> Please test if you have time. It was a long time ago for me too that I
> wor
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Gregory Jefferis wrote:
> On 2010-10-23 16:40, "Richard Heck" wrote:
>
>> BUT...perhaps we could avoid going forward by allowing LyX to calculate
>> the hash value. I'd guess that it is easy to check if we have a hash
>> value or not, right? If not, then we can ca
> I took a look and this looks good so far and a bit simpler than what I
> thought would be necessary but I haven't tried to test it yet.
>
Please test if you have time. It was a long time ago for me too that I
worked on that code.
> I do remember that someone commented that they didn't like the
On 2010-10-23 16:40, "Richard Heck" wrote:
> BUT...perhaps we could avoid going forward by allowing LyX to calculate
> the hash value. I'd guess that it is easy to check if we have a hash
> value or not, right? If not, then we can calculate it. Maybe we need
> such code, anyway, in case there's s
On 10/23/2010 10:38 AM, Gregory Jefferis wrote:
On 2010-10-23 15:19, "Richard Heck" wrote:
On 10/23/2010 07:18 AM, Gregory Jefferis wrote:
3) How should lyx2lyx be handled in this case? I guess I need to layer a
conversion from vfr's patch (format 369) to my proposal. Or
On 2010-10-23 15:19, "Richard Heck" wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 07:18 AM, Gregory Jefferis wrote:
>>
3) How should lyx2lyx be handled in this case? I guess I need to layer a
conversion from vfr's patch (format 369) to my proposal. Or if that file
format was never a stable release
On 10/23/2010 07:18 AM, Gregory Jefferis wrote:
3) How should lyx2lyx be handled in this case? I guess I need to layer a
conversion from vfr's patch (format 369) to my proposal. Or if that file
format was never a stable release can it be ignored?
Now we only need to revert the hash n
Hi Vincent,
Thank you very much for getting back to this.
On 2010-10-23 03:21, "Vincent van Ravesteijn" wrote:
> Hi Gregory,
>
>> 1) I have a patch set for 1.6.X which will no longer apply because Vincent
>> (vfr) already contributed an alternative. I presume that I need to modify
>> my patch
Hi Gregory,
> 1) I have a patch set for 1.6.X which will no longer apply because Vincent
> (vfr) already contributed an alternative. I presume that I need to modify
> my patch to layer on top of his.
Actually, I wouldn't say I contributed an alternative. I just put in
your idea but implemented s
On 09/26/2010 07:57 PM, Gregory Jefferis wrote:
I would like to have another go at fixing this bad interaction between track
changes and version control systems. Basically means using a hash function
of author email (+/- name) rather than an integer starting at 1 to identify
the author of track
On 09/27/2010 07:24 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Gregory Jefferis wrote:
conversion from vfr's patch (format 369) to my proposal. Or if that file
format was never a stable release can it be ignored?
i think it can't be ignored and new conversion needs to be built on top of it.
our own manu
Gregory Jefferis wrote:
> conversion from vfr's patch (format 369) to my proposal. Or if that file
> format was never a stable release can it be ignored?
i think it can't be ignored and new conversion needs to be built on top of it.
our own manuals are currently in this format too, not to speak a
yes i remember the thread. you unfortunately took too long hiatus and Vincent
disappeared meanwhile... ;)
I'm not disappeared.. ;) and this was still on my todo list. I didn't
forget about it. There just always seems other things that need to be
done too :(.
I'll be somewhat more visibly b
13 matches
Mail list logo
