Op 15-3-2012 0:40, uwesto...@lyx.org schreef:
Author: uwestoehr
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:26:59 +0100
New Commit: 0bfe15d969b2d35732cf4d298c1be8ef6a3a2507
URL:
http://git.lyx.org/?p=lyx.git;a=commit;h=0bfe15d969b2d35732cf4d298c1be8ef6a3a2507
Log:
status.20x: some cosmetics as test commit
+- Gr
"Jose' Matos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Monday 12 September 2005 16:51, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > |
| > | Searching in bugzilla I get 4 critical bugs targeted to 1.4.0, is the
| > | objective to have no critical bugs before releasing pre1?
|
| s/pre1/pre2/;
|
| > pre1 is already
On Monday 12 September 2005 16:51, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> |
> | Searching in bugzilla I get 4 critical bugs targeted to 1.4.0, is the
> | objective to have no critical bugs before releasing pre1?
s/pre1/pre2/;
> pre1 is already out isn't it? (but not announced on purpose.
>
> pre2 wil
"Jose' Matos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hello,
| what is missing for the first release candidate to be publically
released?
|
| Searching in bugzilla I get 4 critical bugs targeted to 1.4.0, is the
| objective to have no critical bugs before releasing pre1?
pre1 is already out
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Jose' Matos wrote:
>> Searching in bugzilla I get 4 critical bugs targeted to 1.4.0, is
>> the objective to have no critical bugs before releasing pre1?
John> Ooops, I just saw "pre1". Please ig
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Jose' Matos wrote:
> Searching in bugzilla I get 4 critical bugs targeted to 1.4.0, is the
> objective to have no critical bugs before releasing pre1?
Ooops, I just saw "pre1". Please ignore me...
john
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Jose' Matos wrote:
> Searching in bugzilla I get 4 critical bugs targeted to 1.4.0, is the
> objective to have no critical bugs before releasing pre1?
I thought the purpose of setting target milestone for any bug was "must
be fixed". Maybe there's
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:39:50AM +, Andreas Vox wrote:
> Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I try to check if all features are still working. Haven't tried branches and
> > friends for a long time now.
>
> I'm using branches with 1.4.0cvs. 60 page DocBook document, two b
Andreas Vox wrote:
> * Always deactivates branches after opening (is this wanted?)
no (but I cannot reproduce it). Can you give an example?
Jürgen
John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 10:08:50AM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
>
>> What needs to be done beneath fixing the crashes is: getting the merge
>> feature in a workable state again.
>
> This is not a big deal, since it's new in 1.4, it can easily be backed
> out.
Or, we co
Josà AbÃlio Oliveira Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
< On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:39:50AM +, Andreas Vox wrote:
< >
< > Branches work fine except two minor quirks:
< > * If you insert a branch for the whole section, the layout becomes
< > "standard"
< >inside the branch inset and sta
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 10:08:50AM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> What needs to be done beneath fixing the crashes is: getting the merge
> feature in a workable state again.
This is not a big deal, since it's new in 1.4, it can easily be backed
out.
regards
john
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:39:50AM +, Andreas Vox wrote:
>
> Branches work fine except two minor quirks:
> * If you insert a branch for the whole section, the layout becomes "standard"
>inside the branch inset and stays section outside, causing empty sectgions.
Could you give an examp
Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I try to check if all features are still working. Haven't tried branches and
> friends for a long time now.
I'm using branches with 1.4.0cvs. 60 page DocBook document, two branches with
10-20 insets total, lots of figures, one table.
The table
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> I am have scanned bugzilla regularly recently and, if I could not fix
> them, tried to at least verify the status of the critical and major bugs.
> There are indeed not much that need to be fixed urgently (lots are
> "fixedintrunk", others ar long-time bugs), but bugz
José Abílio Oliveira Matos wrote:
> cutting the nonsense and being objective what needs to be done to release
> a stable 1.4.0?
>
> Is it reasonable to have a HEAD that has problems while Alfredo is fixing
> the bugs in the other branch?
>
> Looking in bugzilla for bugs related with 1.4.0, block
Josà AbÃlio Oliveira Matos wrote:
> Hi all,
>cutting the nonsense and being objective what needs to be done to
>release
> a stable 1.4.0?
>
>Is it reasonable to have a HEAD that has problems while Alfredo is
>fixing
> the bugs in the other branch?
Mmmm I'm not fixing bugs that ar
17 matches
Mail list logo
