Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-30 Thread Angus Leeming
John Weiss wrote: > One could certainly add an "assert" to a trace class. You'd then need > a 3-state "#define" constant: undefined (for the no-op defn.), > defined, gentle mode (does not abort), defined, harsh mode (aborts). > > [Note: I'll provide my own "Trace.{h,cc}" files on request.] Her

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-30 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > I'm compiling your coordinates rewrite patch, and I'll try to work a bit on > it in the next few days. That would be really nice. But don't hesitate to drop it completely and stick to current CVS if you get the impression that

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-30 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 09:03:23AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote: > To add my spicing to this soup, shouldn't we first take inventory of > what bugs we actually have, and how critical they are? There is all > kinds of stuff on bugzilla, and I suspect some of them must be > absolutely fixed while othe

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-29 Thread John Weiss
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:31:02PM +0200, Asger Kunuk Ottar Alstrup wrote: > > Regarding the assertions: That sounds like a brillant idea. If possible, > make it so that debugging info is dumped on the console, but often > assertions are just as wrong as the code itself, so it makes sense to > kno

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-28 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 02:00:41PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > btw, when exactly are you planning to stop playing around? (double-;-)) Oh, sometime in the next epoch... john

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-28 Thread Alfredo Braunstein
Josà AbÃlio Oliveira Matos wrote: > Congratulations. :-) Thank you sir! Alfredo

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-28 Thread Alfredo Braunstein
John Levon wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > >> Alfredo, phd for almost a day ;-) > > Congratulations! Now, get to work! Well said ;-) Alfredo btw, when exactly are you planning to stop playing around? (double-;-))

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-28 Thread Alfredo Braunstein
Angus Leeming wrote: > Josà AbÃlio Oliveira Matos wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: >>> >>> Alfredo, phd for almost a day ;-) >> >> Congratulations. :-) > > Well done, Dr Braunstein. I hope you enjoyed your viva. Humm... enjoyed? Well I certainl

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-28 Thread Angus Leeming
José Abílio Oliveira Matos wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: >> >> Alfredo, phd for almost a day ;-) > > Congratulations. :-) Well done, Dr Braunstein. I hope you enjoyed your viva. -- Angus

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-28 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > Alfredo, phd for almost a day ;-) Congratulations! Now, get to work! john

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-28 Thread José Abílio Oliveira Matos
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > > Alfredo, phd for almost a day ;-) Congratulations. :-) -- José Abílio Matos LyX and docbook a perfect match. :-)

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-28 Thread Alfredo Braunstein
Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > I'm compiling your coordinates rewrite patch, and I'll try to work a bit > on it in the next few days. Andre', could you send an updated version? The last one you sent (in this thread) seems to miss changes inside insets/ Alfredo

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-28 Thread Alfredo Braunstein
Andre Poenitz wrote: > I think we should try to make an effort to get 1.4.0cvs into a state > where we could ask adventurous users to try it out. > > Right now, we've plenty of crashes, so this seems to be impossible. > However, most of the current crashes are the direct response to an > assert,

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-26 Thread John Levon
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 09:03:23AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote: > To add my spicing to this soup, shouldn't we first take inventory of > what bugs we actually have, and how critical they are? There is all > kinds of stuff on bugzilla, and I suspect some of them must be > absolutely fixed while oth

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-25 Thread Martin Vermeer
To add my spicing to this soup, shouldn't we first take inventory of what bugs we actually have, and how critical they are? There is all kinds of stuff on bugzilla, and I suspect some of them must be absolutely fixed while others can be plastered over safely like Andre suggests... but could "someb

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-25 Thread Andreas Vox
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So this is 'more usable' than a plain crash. What's wrong with a plain crash ? ;-) I never lost more than a line of text when LyX recovered after a crash and that's pretty _impressive_ when compared to Word and its likes! (Well, ok, Word doesn't crash as

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-25 Thread John Levon
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:33:17PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > Sure, but how's that going to encourage users to use 1.4.0cvs? > > If the result is still usable, it's usable. The only people we're going to get using a program that brings up a "everything's screwed message" every 10 minutes ar

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-25 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 07:37:34AM +0100, John Levon wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 12:03:59PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > > > That's why I propose changing some/most/all asserts to something less > > > > brutish, i.e. an exception carrying the same information as the assert > > > > that w

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-24 Thread John Levon
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 12:03:59PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > That's why I propose changing some/most/all asserts to something less > > > brutish, i.e. an exception carrying the same information as the assert > > > that will be caught in the main loop (i.e. the outermost dispatch or > > > e

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-24 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 08:46:46PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > > That's why I propose changing some/most/all asserts to something less > > brutish, i.e. an exception carrying the same information as the assert > > that will be caught in the main loop (i.e. the outermost dispatch or > > even in the f

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-23 Thread John Levon
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:31:02PM +0200, Asger Kunuk Ottar Alstrup wrote: > Another idea would be to implement a monkey-tester: It clicks randomly all This sort of thing is certainly a good idea, but not right now. Even older lyx versions are not particularly stable under onslaughts such as this

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-23 Thread John Levon
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 01:50:10PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > I think we should try to make an effort to get 1.4.0cvs into a state > where we could ask adventurous users to try it out. > > Right now, we've plenty of crashes, so this seems to be impossible. > However, most of the current crashe

Re: Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-23 Thread Asger Kunuk Ottar Alstrup
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Andre Poenitz wrote: > I think we should try to make an effort to get 1.4.0cvs into a state > where we could ask adventurous users to try it out. I think that sounds like exactly the right thing to do. Regarding the assertions: That sounds like a brillant idea. If possible,

Route to 1.4.0

2004-10-23 Thread Andre Poenitz
I think we should try to make an effort to get 1.4.0cvs into a state where we could ask adventurous users to try it out. Right now, we've plenty of crashes, so this seems to be impossible. However, most of the current crashes are the direct response to an assert, so they are somehow home made. Of