Am Sonntag, den 17.10.2010, 18:28 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> > > the most problematic cases of our copy&paste typically happen when
> > > middle button is used for getting, or puting stuff from/into another
> > > applications and when more lyx instances are used. dunn
> ok, thanks for the info. unless Vincent put it in, i will do before
> beta goes out.
>
I looked at the patch again and in the Qt Docs and I read:
{{{
void QClipboard::dataChanged () [signal]
This signal is emitted when the clipboard data is changed.
On Mac OS X and with Qt version 4.3 or hig
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> hi,
status update #1, the most urgent bug is gone.
> 1) short resume for things we need before releasing beta
> - Richard has some pending work on lyx2lyx which will finish some JMarc work.
> - pending patch from Gregory Jefferis for CT, Vincent might have look on it.
htt
Am 17.10.2010 21:57, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:
Why would closing trunk for new features _assure_ getting a beta out ?
This prevents us from introducing new bugs and regressions. (An example of a newly introduced
regression is for example http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/6943)
At some po
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Nice! But to assure that we achieve this can you close trunk for new
> features soon? Trunk should only be open for bugfixes and documentation.
basically it is releasing beta which makes closure for new features. its not
such big deal if there are bugs in beta1, everybody will
Op 17-10-2010 20:31, Uwe Stöhr schreef:
> to sum it up, beta is doable
> at the end of October or on the very beginning of November - now for
real.
Nice! But to assure that we achieve this can you close trunk for new
features soon? Trunk should only be open for bugfixes and documentation.
> to sum it up, beta is doable
> at the end of October or on the very beginning of November - now for real.
Nice! But to assure that we achieve this can you close trunk for new features soon? Trunk should
only be open for bugfixes and documentation.
regards Uwe
Richard Heck wrote:
>> Richard, was the last movement in lyx2lyx fixing this or we wait for
>> something else?
>>
>>
> No, that was JMarc's other request. I'll have a look early next week at
> this bit.
thanks, give me hint once its finished ;)
pavel
On 10/17/2010 12:52 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
I've lost track, I'm afraid, of which patch set is which. Here's what I've
got.
i have flagged this message from JMarc in case it makes the things more clear:
I would like to have the ne
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > i tried to be transparent and listed exactly 4 bugs which are in my
> opinion
> > before-beta stuff
>
> So I missed this post from you but cannot find it in the archives. What are
> these 4 bugs?
the first point of this thread
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx
> i tried to be transparent and listed exactly 4 bugs which are in my opinion
> before-beta stuff
So I missed this post from you but cannot find it in the archives. What are
these 4 bugs?
thanks and regards
Uwe
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
> > I've lost track, I'm afraid, of which patch set is which. Here's what I've
> > got.
>
> i have flagged this message from JMarc in case it makes the things more clear:
>
> >I would like to have the newlineisparbreak part, which is important for
> >swea
John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> > the most problematic cases of our copy&paste typically happen when
> > middle button is used for getting, or puting stuff from/into another
> > applications and when more lyx instances are used. dunno whether
> > the patch affects these use cases... its very fragile s
Am 14.10.2010 um 17:19 schrieb BH:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:13 PM, John McCabe-Dansted
> wrote:
>> Hi, a patch for #6597 is sitting at:
>> http://www.lyx.org/trac/attachment/ticket/6597/GuiClipboard.cpp.2.patch
>>
>> I'd like to get this patch in. We discussed the patch and agreed it
>> lo
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> I've tested the patch on Mac OS 10.6, current svn of LyX trunk, and
>> Qt-4.7. Cutting and pasting both from LyX to other programs and from
>> other programs to LyX works fine from what I can see.
>
> the most problematic cases of our copy&pa
BH wrote:
> > Would someone with MacOS X like to confirm that this patch doesn't
> > break pasting into LyX from other applications?
>
> I've tested the patch on Mac OS 10.6, current svn of LyX trunk, and
> Qt-4.7. Cutting and pasting both from LyX to other programs and from
> other programs to Ly
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:13 PM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> Hi, a patch for #6597 is sitting at:
> http://www.lyx.org/trac/attachment/ticket/6597/GuiClipboard.cpp.2.patch
>
> I'd like to get this patch in. We discussed the patch and agreed it
> looked "pretty reasonable", but there was some th
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > Uwe, I don't like the pressure you make.
>
> Sorry. I don't want to pressurize anybody.
no problem, asked for feedback and got it :) your impulse closed many bug
yesterday so good move anyway.
i tried to be transparent and listed exactly 4 bugs which are in my opinion
before-
Le 13 oct. 10 à 15:16, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
i see. so the question becomes how it is with funding from lyx
(JMarc?) and
I have no idea about the funding. Lars knows, or maybe José.
how many people would be interested in coming in nov/dec. (?)
some weekend is possible for me when i know it i
Am 13.10.2010 um 15:16 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>> We should and cannot rely on others. Linux distribution and all together only
>> cover less than 10% of the whole PC market.
>
> of course we are not anybody's slave. but we can do things in more or less
> clever way as far as dist
Hi, a patch for #6597 is sitting at:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/attachment/ticket/6597/GuiClipboard.cpp.2.patch
I'd like to get this patch in. We discussed the patch and agreed it
looked "pretty reasonable", but there was some theoretical discussion
as to whether the patch would break cut-and-paste
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> We should and cannot rely on others. Linux distribution and all together only
> cover less than 10% of the whole PC market.
of course we are not anybody's slave. but we can do things in more or less
clever way as far as distros is concerned. thats why i want to have bugs solved
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> In my opinion we need the beta and feature freeze right now because
releasing beta every 2 weeks doesn't solve anything because the main problem is
not absence of bug reports but the fact that most of us have no time for fixing
them.
freezing is good idea and i already retarget
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> i was not so much concerned about synchronous releases but with releasing
> at least one interim release before becoming more consevative...
Ah, OK. Then we are in line.
Jürgen
Richard Heck wrote:
> I've lost track, I'm afraid, of which patch set is which. Here's what I've
> got.
i have flagged this message from JMarc in case it makes the things more clear:
>I would like to have the newlineisparbreak part, which is important for
>sweave support and is a file format cha
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Concerning the synchronouos release time: depends on what bugs show up in
> branch. If we fix some critical bug in branch, we should not wait with the
> release for the beta.
i was not so much concerned about _synchronous_ releases but with releasing
at least one inte
Richard Heck wrote:
> I also remember there was something about passthru layouts and paragraph
> breaks. I don't quite recall what that was, but it should be fairly easy,
> if someone can remind me what I was supposed to do. ;-)
the original thread is here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@
On 10/12/2010 08:34 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
hi,
1) short resume for things we need before releasing beta
- Richard has some pending work on lyx2lyx which will finish some JMarc work.
I've lost track, I'm afraid, of which patch set is which. Here's what
I've got.
One thing I remember is a
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> 2) ideas how to deal with so many bugs we have
> i was thinking that dev meeting could have this topic - to get rid at least
> worst cases of bugs of 2.0svn. however there was no new message about the
> freiburg party - do i understand correctly this idea is dead, right?
I rea
hi,
1) short resume for things we need before releasing beta
- Richard has some pending work on lyx2lyx which will finish some JMarc work.
- pending patch from Gregory Jefferis for CT, Vincent might have look on it.
- dispatch fixes for #6417
- #6809 - converting to older LyX versions doesn't work
iend who's starting to write a thesis in Hebrew
> today were to ask me, I would still recommend that he use 1.3.X rather
> than 1.5. This probably does not reflect any flaws in the LyX
> development process, but rather just the plain fact that there hasn't
> been any RTL-usin
agellation about our
current development process, our failed promises to the users, our lack
of focus, etc.
I personally feel proud of what we achieved in one year of development.
Also I *personally* don't feel belted by the regressions introduced by
1.4: I was not there.
I am repea
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 12:09:39PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
[...]
> > Geodynamics Conference and "Disaster Area" a thrash-metal, punk,
>
> Seems a bit low-key for them, no ?
They're building up to the climax... You can't start with the climax
otherwise ever
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 12:09:39PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> Farts. That's all they are.
I know ! It was bizarre being woken up by my first "quake", but it's
not exactly a big deal.
I've become blase already to them.
> Geodynamics Conference and "Disaster Area" a thrash-metal, punk,
Seems a b
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, John Levon wrote:
> > Allan. (ARRae) Now to get home through the dust storm.
> > http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s709170.htm
>
> That's nothing ! We're having *quakes*. Well, tremors. Everyone's
> running round like headless chickens; it's kind of unusual (like
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:43:21PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> > > So, opening up will be like pissing in your pants to keep warm.
> [...]
> I'm quoting out of context but this would make a good QOTM.
Definitely :)
> enjoy. Maybe just maybe I might even make it to the developers
> meeting next ye
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 03:10:25PM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
>
> > So, opening up will be like pissing in your pants to keep warm.
[...]
> It's still a pity nobody has time for lyx development news any more IMHO
I'm quoting out of context b
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:51:59AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Rob Lahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Andre Poenitz wrote:
> | > I have no strong opinion or even an idea on how to solve that, I just
> | > want to say that there _is_ a problem. A serious one to be precise.
> |
> |
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:02:42AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Not in stability terms, probably, but there is still some cleanups to
> do to the `plain' (ie xforms) version. And there is the qt version,
> which still is not working completely (from what I read, I personally
> just cannot
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Another option that _might_ work slightly better is to branch the
| releases not from CVS head of some arbitrary day but from 'best CVS within
| the last few month'. So if many people are happy with 'early August' but
| not with 'September 20', we could
Rob Lahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Andre Poenitz wrote:
| > I have no strong opinion or even an idea on how to solve that, I just
| > want to say that there _is_ a problem. A serious one to be precise.
|
| Would it be really such a bad idea to branch off 1.4.0 immediately at the
| moment 1
Hi,
If you allow me some comments,
Rob Lahaye wrote:
> Yes there are bugs, and there always will be bugs. But they cannot be
> that serious. I've been using 1.3.0 from almost its start for three
> papers already; no serious problems at all; I'm not a power user,
though.
André Poenitz wrote:
>
Andre Poenitz wrote:
>>But I am not sure that these are the bugs which prevent us from
>>shipping 1.3.0.
>
>
> Probably not.
>
> But there are things like the undo crashs that have been in for ages
> without any improvment on the horizon.
Well maybe there is light on the horizont. I'm actuall
> "Rob" == Rob Lahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rob> Another thing that keeps popping up in my humble mind: is the
Rob> present 1.3.0 as it is now, that much worse than the present
Rob> 1.2.x release; in stability terms, that is.
Not in stability terms, probably, but there is still some cl
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:15:47PM +0900, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> Yeah, but this bug, as with others, is not going to stop 1.3.0 release, is
> it?
No. I don't think anybody is currently able to track it down and fix it.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will
Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> Hm... On those days I really _use_ LyX I have one crash or so on average,
> almost always in 'undo'. But so far no single line has been lost [lucky
> me...]
Yeah, but this bug, as with others, is not going to stop 1.3.0 release, is it?
Rob.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:02:27PM +0900, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> Another thing that keeps popping up in my humble mind: is the present
> 1.3.0 as it is now, that much worse than the present 1.2.x release; in
> stability terms, that is.
>
> I don't think so, which means you could simply release what
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:35:23PM +0900, Rob Lahaye wrote:
>
>>Would it be really such a bad idea to branch off 1.4.0 immediately at the
>>moment 1.3.0 goes into feature freeze?
>
>
> Probably a bad idea as people like me would have even less incentive to
> contribute to
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:35:23PM +0900, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> Would it be really such a bad idea to branch off 1.4.0 immediately at the
> moment 1.3.0 goes into feature freeze?
Probably a bad idea as people like me would have even less incentive to
contribute to the stabilization of the frozen br
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I have no strong opinion or even an idea on how to solve that, I just
> want to say that there _is_ a problem. A serious one to be precise.
Would it be really such a bad idea to branch off 1.4.0 immediately at the
moment 1.3.0 goes into feature freeze?
Patches, sent to the
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:51:49AM +0930, Darren Freeman wrote:
> For now, I need power-user status... That's gotta be worth some
> geek-credits?
As power users usually have to fix bugs themselves I guess yes ;-)
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will no
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:51:49AM +0930, Darren Freeman wrote:
> I'm a firm believer that engineers don't *have* to write crappy GUIs, they
> just normally do =) So I plan to stand out and shout: "I'm an engineer! Yet
> my GUI doesn't make you want to puke!!!"
You sound like my kind of develo
At 10:40 PM 10/10/2002, you wrote:
>It's simple. We should make it attractive to work on this:
>
> - Express that this project is a high-prestige area. Working on this
>project gives you ultra-geek-credit
I'm in!! Where can I sign up for my geek credits?
But seriously though, when my semest
On Thursday 10 October 2002 6:32 pm, Roland Krause wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> I havent really followed this list and this discussion but
> from time to time I feel compelled to write. Today I gave in:
Hello, Roland.
Just to clear up any confusion, the Qt port is genuine Qt and is
almost finished than
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:51:03PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I think there was no "official" call. I just had been decided that the Qt
> port was necessary for a 1.3 release and as nothing else is being worked
> on there was some expectation that the Qt work gets done somehow. But it
> does
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 06:43:05PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> Qt frontend uses signal/slots from Qt. It communicates with the lyx core
> via boost's signal/slots mechanism, which is far nicer.
Urgs... shame on me.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:32:42AM -0700, Roland Krause wrote:
> I remember from a year ago, that your Qt port wasnt really using Qt's
> signal and slot but instead your own implementation, is that still
> true?
We are using boost's signals nowaday which happen to work for both
frontends.
> Unfo
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:32:42AM -0700, Roland Krause wrote:
> I remember from a year ago, that your Qt port wasnt really using Qt's
> signal and slot but instead your own implementation, is that still
> true?
Qt frontend uses signal/slots from Qt. It communicates with the lyx core
via boost's
Hallo,
I havent really followed this list and this discussion but from time to
time I feel compelled to write. Today I gave in:
I remember from a year ago, that your Qt port wasnt really using Qt's
signal and slot but instead your own implementation, is that still
true?
I take it that what you
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> But there are things like the undo crashs that have been in for ages
> without any improvment on the horizon.
But we should concern ourselves with regressions only for 1.3
john
--
"Everything in the world runs through Birmingha
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 04:11:35PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> But I am not sure that these are the bugs which prevent us from
> shipping 1.3.0.
Probably not.
But there are things like the undo crashs that have been in for ages
without any improvment on the horizon.
Andre'
--
Those
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 03:10:25PM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> So, opening up will be like pissing in your pants to keep warm.
classic :) (I agree)
> We need work on the Qt-port.
Actually there is plenty to do for non-Qt people as well.
> - Consider to ask for external help:
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 03:10:25PM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup
Andre> Nielsen wrote:
>> The problem is that if the freeze is opened, there will be more
>> things that needs to be fixed.
Andre> Well, one of the points I was trying t
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 03:10:25PM +0200, Asger Kunuk Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> The problem is that if the freeze is opened, there will be more
> things that needs to be fixed.
Well, one of the points I was trying to make - or _the_ point - is the
"infrastructure thingy":
LyX's internal structure
Andre has a point that the freeze results in a waste of resources,
because the resource we have is not willing to work on the things
that are missing.
But a change in policy will not fix this problem.
Only people willing to work on the missing things will bring the
release forward. Other solutio
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 12:16:31PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> PS: For heresy's sake: I think the 1.2 series is in an acceptable shape for
> most users.
It is indeed a heresy. There is so much horribly wrong with 1.2 I
wouldn't know where to start.
> So I see no _real_ need for 1.3 (anymore).
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:58:31AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | I think we need some automatism to solve the dead-lock issue. Like "if pre1
> | is not out after a four week freeze, the freeze is revoked"...
>
> Yes, but in what way does that help?
We could go back to infrastructure work
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> I agree. But the objective is not to cram as many features as
Lars> possible into the next release, but to get the next release out
Lars> of the door. The best would be for all of us to look at what
Lars> needs to be done and h
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I think we need some automatism to solve the dead-lock issue. Like "if pre1
| is not out after a four week freeze, the freeze is revoked"...
Yes, but in what way does that help?
Let's say that we are in review state instead: No patches go into cvs
unl
If I had the same amount of time to spend to work on LyX I had in June I'd
be pretty disappointed by the current speed of the development process.
Fortunately I have not.
Nevertheless I think we need to adjust the process in the future somehow.
The 1.2 and 1.3 freezes somehow follow the
70 matches
Mail list logo
