On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 01:40:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:44:14AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
> > We usually _never_ include it in the header files, only in the .C
> > files. (and then _always_ as the first file included.)
> >
> > Please fix this in the qt
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 04:23:52PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> We can always leave Qt to 1.3.1 or something. 1.4.0 would suck seeing as
> it won't be out till around 2004
I would not mind putting Qt into 1.3.0 as-is. It works even if it does not
offer all features of the xforms frontend. It's cert
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| We can always leave Qt to 1.3.1 or something.
Then 1.3.1 wouln't be a bugfix only release, and I am not sure that we
want to do that.
| 1.4.0 would suck seeing as
| it won't be out till around 2004
Oh, I hope that we can speed up the release cycles a bi
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 03:36:25PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Looks like we're all busy for the foreseeable future. That
> suggests that "proper" bug fixing of what we have at the moment
> will also be a long, drawn out business.
Yes. We have some pretty nasty regressions unfortunately.
>
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 3:52 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 04:30:07PM +0200, Andre Poenitz
wrote:
> >> > still the qt gui to finish...
> >>
> >> Any idea how long this would be? John?
> |
> | Qt is taking a back burner for
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 04:30:07PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
>> > still the qt gui to finish...
>>
>> Any idea how long this would be? John?
>
| Qt is taking a back burner for me for at least two months. I might be
| able to spare the odd hour here an
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 04:01:05PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> I am counting on that you have learned.
>>
>> and as said: We are not in Code Freeze, only Feature Freeze. There is
>> still the qt gui to finish...
>
| Any idea how long this woul
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 04:30:07PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > still the qt gui to finish...
>
> Any idea how long this would be? John?
Qt is taking a back burner for me for at least two months. I might be
able to spare the odd hour here and there
I don't think we'll make xmas
regards
joh
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 04:01:05PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I am counting on that you have learned.
>
> and as said: We are not in Code Freeze, only Feature Freeze. There is
> still the qt gui to finish...
Any idea how long this would be? John?
[I am pretty happy about it actually as
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tuesday 24 September 2002 2:52 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | and here it is. 6817 lines of trivia. Ok to apply?
>>
>> I am not even going to read it... yes.
>
| Man, you've changed your tune. Didn't you suspend my commit
| priviliges last free
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 2:52 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | and here it is. 6817 lines of trivia. Ok to apply?
>
> I am not even going to read it... yes.
Man, you've changed your tune. Didn't you suspend my commit
priviliges last freeze-cycle?
Applying now.
Angus
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tuesday 24 September 2002 2:17 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> Leave it for now. It does not seem to make a great difference
>> anymore.
>
| Too late, I just went and did it ;-)
| I reasoned that this should be done for reasons of consistency.
| Y
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 2:17 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Leave it for now. It does not seem to make a great difference
> anymore.
Too late, I just went and did it ;-)
I reasoned that this should be done for reasons of consistency.
You can always remove all #pragmas next time round.
>
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| * most files: "standard-conforming" Licence declaration.
| Remove trailing whitespace.
>
| * many header files: do not #include
| Remove unnecessary #includes by using forward declarations.
| Add as first line: // -*- C++
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 01:21:09PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Incidentally, playing around with the menus on this freshly
> compiled qt-lyx, I get lots of (no document opened):
>
> Lyx Error: Unrecognized pseudo-action 541621404
>
> Any ideas?
Something is awry in the math menus. It's on b
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 1:48 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 01:12:42PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Like he says. You compile .C files, not .h ones and every .C
> > file should #include config.h as the first file included.
>
> Oh, sorry. OK.
>
> > Never fear, I'll post the
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 01:12:42PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Like he says. You compile .C files, not .h ones and every .C
> file should #include config.h as the first file included.
Oh, sorry. OK.
> Never fear, I'll post the patch here and let you apply it/bin it.
Please apply it, I am la
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 1:40 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:44:14AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes
wrote:
> > We usually _never_ include it in the header files, only in
> > the .C files. (and then _always_ as the first file
> > included.)
> >
> > Please fix this in the qt sou
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:44:14AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> We usually _never_ include it in the header files, only in the .C
> files. (and then _always_ as the first file included.)
>
> Please fix this in the qt sources.
And how does this work, seeing as you need LString.h when you
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 12:32:47PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> statement. Should I leave things as they are, add a statement to
> those missing it or remove it from the remaining files, since
> you've all been quite happily using g++ without any problems.
During the next cycly we should have
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 8:44 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Is there a LyX policy for the correct place to #include
> | config.h? It seems that the Qt frontend does so in the
> | header files whilst the rest of LyX does so in the .C files.
> | I
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Is there a LyX policy for the correct place to #include
| config.h? It seems that the Qt frontend does so in the header
| files whilst the rest of LyX does so in the .C files. Is there a
| reason or is it just an arbitrary difference?
We usually _ne
22 matches
Mail list logo
