Am Freitag, 14. Juli 2006 14:28 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> I am pretty sure you did but I cannot find the mail right now. IIRC you
> said that a fully working qt4 port could justify postponing unicode to
1.6.
I don't remeber reading that from Jean-Marc.
> Of course it is! 1.5 is worth being r
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
The only missing feature feature of the Qt4 frontend is
the bullet settings dialogs. Could you confirm this Edwin?
On this subject, there would be a new QWidgetAction class in 4.2, you
can read about it there:
http://blogs.qtdeveloper.net/archives/2006/06/30/qt-42-t
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
You've been busy for your last afternoon before holidays... :-)
i thought that i wouldn't get any "real" work done anymore, which seemed
like a good excuse to tinker a bit with lyx ;-)
Yes, it looks good.
it's in
bonnes vacances à tous!
regards, ed.
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
What's that?
adding a dropdown menu with different kind of fractions to the fraction
button (think georg added this some time ago to qt3)
the attached patch also repairs the panel problem
You've been busy for your last afternoon before holidays
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
What's that?
adding a dropdown menu with different kind of fractions to the fraction
button (think georg added this some time ago to qt3)
the attached patch also repairs the panel problem
i think this can go in
Index: QMathDialog.C
==
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
the other thing that needs to be looked at is the panel switching in
math panel (doesn't always seem to work...)
Yes I forgot about that...
and the attached i think
What's that?
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
the other thing that needs to be looked at is the panel switching in
math panel (doesn't always seem to work...)
Yes I forgot about that...
and the attached i think
Index: src/frontends/qt4/ui/QMathUi.ui
==
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Hmmm... the more 1.5 features we back-port, the longer it
Michael> will take to release 1.5!
No. I am not going to let 1.4 starve for ideologic reasons...
Pragmatically, I would say:
- the no-sh patch i
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
The only missing feature feature of the Qt4 frontend is the bullet
settings dialogs. Could you confirm this Edwin?
yes.
the other thing that needs to be looked at is the panel switching in
math panel (doesn't always seem to work...)
Yes I forgot
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Actually, IIRC I think JMarc considers this as a good
Abdelrazak> enough reason for releasing 1.5. The only missing feature
Abdelrazak> feature of the Qt4 frontend is the bullet settings
Abdelr
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
The only missing feature feature of the Qt4 frontend is
the bullet settings dialogs. Could you confirm this Edwin?
yes.
the other thing that needs to be looked at is the panel switching in
math panel (doesn't always seem to work...)
i am leaving on vacation this aft
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Actually, IIRC I think JMarc considers this as a good
Abdelrazak> enough reason for releasing 1.5. The only missing feature
Abdelrazak> feature of the Qt4 frontend is the bullet settings
Abdelrazak> dialogs. Could you
> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Hmmm... the more 1.5 features we back-port, the longer it
Michael> will take to release 1.5!
No. I am not going to let 1.4 starve for ideologic reasons...
Pragmatically, I would say:
- the no-sh patch is really important to hav
Michael Gerz wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Besides all the usual small fixes we might stumble on, I plan to do
two main things in 1.4.3:
- backport the no-sh set of patches from Bo, so that minsys is not
needed anymore in windows.
- backport the outline feature. Martin told me he has a
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Besides all the usual small fixes we might stumble on, I plan to do
two main things in 1.4.3:
- backport the no-sh set of patches from Bo, so that minsys is not
needed anymore in windows.
- backport the outline feature. Martin told me he has a patch ready.
We coul
Bo> I can do that this weekend, if you think the python scripts are
Bo> stable enough.
Hmm, I thought you thought they were stable :)
I do think they are stable.
If you think they need more testing, there is no hurry. However, having the
scripts
in svn will speed up testing.
Then I will b
> "Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> - backport the no-sh set of patches from Bo, so that minsys is not
>> needed anymore in windows.
Bo> I can do that this weekend, if you think the python scripts are
Bo> stable enough.
Hmm, I thought you thought they were stable :) If you think
- backport the no-sh set of patches from Bo, so that minsys is not
needed anymore in windows.
I can do that this weekend, if you think the python scripts are stable enough.
Bo
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > I think the coordCache is guilty of most (all?) the crashes we see
> > either on trunk or in 1.4.2. This concept is very fragile.
>
> OK. The problem is that I cannot reproduce most of the crashes yet. If I
> can, I'll check if your patch i
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Did you test my patch fixing three map search related bugs, Jurgen?
Not yet.
> I think the coordCache is guilty of most (all?) the crashes we see
> either on trunk or in 1.4.2. This concept is very fragile.
OK. The problem is that I cannot reproduce most of the crashes
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Thoughts?
There are still some unresolved, tricky crashes (see bugzilla). We should try
especially to track down the ones related to gcc-4.1 (boost?).
Did you test my patch fixing three map search related bugs, Jurgen?
I think the coo
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Since you are the release manager you can decide what is the best
>> schedule for those releases. If you do that we have a known
>> timeframe to work the fixes, instead of trying to push every
>> forgotten fix at the last minute.
Georg> M
Jose' Matos wrote:
> I like this plan, I think that we should try to do time schedule
> releases
> for the stable branch.
Not a bad idea actually.
> Since you are the release manager you can decide what is the best
> schedule
> for those releases. If you do that we have a known timeframe
Georg Baum wrote:
> Do you have a list of the gcc4.1 related crahes? I'll need to check them at
> home, where I compile with gcc 4.1.
- 2414
- 2459
and probably
- 2662
- 2677
It seems that the situation improved in general (for me with SuSE
10.1/gcc-4.1), the testcases do not crash anymore immed
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> There are still some unresolved, tricky crashes (see bugzilla). We should
> try especially to track down the ones related to gcc-4.1 (boost?).
Do you have a list of the gcc4.1 related crahes? I'll need to check them at
home, where I compile with gcc 4.1.
Georg
On Thursday 13 July 2006 10:15, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> We could even release 1.4.3 in September with these features.
>
> Thoughts?
I like this plan, I think that we should try to do time schedule releases
for the stable branch.
Since you are the release manager you can decide what is
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Thoughts?
There are still some unresolved, tricky crashes (see bugzilla). We should try
especially to track down the ones related to gcc-4.1 (boost?).
Jürgen
27 matches
Mail list logo
