Le 18/07/2012 16:35, Richard Heck a écrit :
On 07/18/2012 05:46 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 13/07/2012 19:21, Richard Heck a écrit :
This is why I propose to add a parameter to reload telling whether
undo should be discarded.
I just committed that change. This is an obvious candidate f
On 07/18/2012 03:08 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 18/07/12 17:43, Richard Heck a écrit :
Looks like you never backported this particular fix. If you decide to
do it, I'll backport my patch too.
Which thing didn't I backport?
This one, I think.
I guess that should go in, so I've done i
Le 18/07/12 17:43, Richard Heck a écrit :
Looks like you never backported this particular fix. If you decide to
do it, I'll backport my patch too.
Which thing didn't I backport?
This one, I think.
JMarc
commit 9283cbdbcb3b33da28d2ecca6cd5665f39c7b388
Author: Richard Heck
Date: Fri Jan 13
On 07/18/2012 10:48 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 18/07/2012 16:35, Richard Heck a écrit :
On 07/18/2012 05:46 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 13/07/2012 19:21, Richard Heck a écrit :
This is why I propose to add a parameter to reload telling whether
undo should be discarded.
I just
Le 18/07/2012 16:35, Richard Heck a écrit :
On 07/18/2012 05:46 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 13/07/2012 19:21, Richard Heck a écrit :
This is why I propose to add a parameter to reload telling whether
undo should be discarded.
I just committed that change. This is an obvious candidate f
On 07/18/2012 05:46 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 13/07/2012 19:21, Richard Heck a écrit :
This is why I propose to add a parameter to reload telling whether
undo should be discarded.
I just committed that change. This is an obvious candidate for branch
(no risk, IMO).
OK.
rh
On 07/18/2012 06:08 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 13/07/2012 19:21, Richard Heck a écrit :
OTOH, it looks like doing a reload in after save-as is a bit harsh. Is
the goal only to sanitize IncludeInset?
It certainly wouldn't surprise me if there were something simpler we
could do. It was d
Le 13/07/2012 19:21, Richard Heck a écrit :
OTOH, it looks like doing a reload in after save-as is a bit harsh. Is
the goal only to sanitize IncludeInset?
It certainly wouldn't surprise me if there were something simpler we
could do. It was definitely a big hammer, that commit.
The primary goa
Le 13/07/2012 19:21, Richard Heck a écrit :
This is why I propose to add a parameter to reload telling whether
undo should be discarded.
I just committed that change. This is an obvious candidate for branch
(no risk, IMO).
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> You mean to preserve undo stack for each reload of file or just for save-as
>> scenario? We also reload automatically after commit/checkout VCS operation
>> which can change read-only status.
>
> This is why I propose to add a parameter to reload telling whether undo
On 07/13/2012 03:47 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 13/07/2012 00:24, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
Richard Heck wrote:
This leads to the harmless message above, but more importantly, it
means
that the undo stack is lost every time a file is saved-as. This
looks like
a regression to me.
Richard,
Le 12/07/2012 18:14, Richard Heck a écrit :
Richard, would it seem right to add a parameter to Buffer::reload
asking to preserve the undo stack in this case?
You would probably know better than I do. Are there pointers on the undo
stack that will be invalidated once we reload?
The undo stack
Le 13/07/2012 00:24, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
Richard Heck wrote:
This leads to the harmless message above, but more importantly, it means
that the undo stack is lost every time a file is saved-as. This looks like
a regression to me.
Richard, would it seem right to add a parameter to Buffer::reloa
Richard Heck wrote:
>> This leads to the harmless message above, but more importantly, it means
>> that the undo stack is lost every time a file is saved-as. This looks like
>> a regression to me.
>>
>> Richard, would it seem right to add a parameter to Buffer::reload asking
>> to preserve the u
On 07/12/2012 07:31 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 11/07/2012 23:05, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
git bisect leads me here:
bbbc2b654175edbccb1ce54ae6dbb15f8a042360
which is related to this ticket:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/8159
I am not surprised that this change leads to this kind of
Le 11/07/2012 23:05, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
git bisect leads me here:
bbbc2b654175edbccb1ce54ae6dbb15f8a042360
which is related to this ticket:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/8159
I am not surprised that this change leads to this kind of problems
(which are harmless AFAICS).
What happens
I can reproduce as follows:
1. Start a fresh LyX session.
2. Open a new document.
3. Save (or Save As).
I get the following messages:
Saving document ~/newfile1.lyx...
Saving document ~/newfile1.lyx... done.
Document ~/newfile1.lyx reloaded.
(buffer-write: Ctrl+S, F2)Undo.cpp (515): There is no u
17 matches
Mail list logo
