On 11.11.2010 00:51, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:39:14PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> r36235: Isn't it enough to move the gv_->processingThreadStarted() call?
>
> I think it is cleaner to clearly show what is the code which is not used.
>
>> And I still wonder why you u
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:39:14PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> r36235: Isn't it enough to move the gv_->processingThreadStarted() call?
I think it is cleaner to clearly show what is the code which is not used.
> And I still wonder why you use Qt 4.2. Is this the latest version
> shipped by cygwi
On 10.11.2010 16:46, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 06:09:08PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:48:29AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>>> The 100% cpu for when previewing is fixed now. (Maybe a bug in the Buffer
>>> function).
>>
>> Hmm... I don't see a
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 06:09:08PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:48:29AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > The 100% cpu for when previewing is fixed now. (Maybe a bug in the Buffer
> > function).
>
> Hmm... I don't see any difference, LyX behaves exactly as described be
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:48:29AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> The 100% cpu for when previewing is fixed now. (Maybe a bug in the Buffer
> function).
Hmm... I don't see any difference, LyX behaves exactly as described before.
--
Enrico
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:02:54AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> On 08.11.2010 02:17, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 01:42:35AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >
> >> On 08.11.2010 01:15, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
On 08.11.2010 02:17, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 01:42:35AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
>> On 08.11.2010 01:15, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>>>
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> #ifdefs where placed without car
On 08.11.2010 02:17, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 01:42:35AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
>> On 08.11.2010 01:15, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>>>
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> #ifdefs where placed without car
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 01:42:35AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> On 08.11.2010 01:15, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> >
> >> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>> #ifdefs where placed without care. My feeling is that it would not be
> >>> at all
On 08.11.2010 01:15, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
>> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>>> #ifdefs where placed without care. My feeling is that it would not be
>>> at all difficult resolving this.
>>
>> can you try please?
>
> The link fails be
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:41:28AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > #ifdefs where placed without care. My feeling is that it would not be
> > at all difficult resolving this.
>
> can you try please?
The link fails because the xxxAndDestroy() methods are #ifdef'd out.
Howe
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:40:52AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> On 08.11.2010 00:34, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 10:56:01PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Heck wrote:
> >>> that can be taken out now. However, my sense is that whatever is stopping
> >>> compil
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> #ifdefs where placed without care. My feeling is that it would not be
> at all difficult resolving this.
can you try please?
pavel
On 08.11.2010 00:34, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 10:56:01PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
>> Richard Heck wrote:
>>> that can be taken out now. However, my sense is that whatever is stopping
>>> compilation with 4.2.x could have been wrapped in #ifs. The
>>> EXPORT_IN_THREAD
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 10:56:01PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
> > that can be taken out now. However, my sense is that whatever is stopping
> > compilation with 4.2.x could have been wrapped in #ifs. The
> > EXPORT_IN_THREAD code requires 4.4.x, yes, but you should be able t
Richard Heck wrote:
> that can be taken out now. However, my sense is that whatever is stopping
> compilation with 4.2.x could have been wrapped in #ifs. The
> EXPORT_IN_THREAD code requires 4.4.x, yes, but you should be able to set
> EXPORT_in_THREAD to 0 and skip that stuff.
i'm all for suppo
On 11/06/2010 07:24 PM, sa...@lyx.org wrote:
Author: sanda
Date: Sun Nov 7 00:24:50 2010
New Revision: 36170
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/36170
Log:
Update docs
Modified:
lyx-devel/trunk/INSTALL
lyx-devel/trunk/README
Modified: lyx-devel/trunk/INSTALL
===
17 matches
Mail list logo
