On 7/20/2012 5:42 AM, Tassilo Horn wrote:
Marcus Frings <[email protected]> writes:
So Biber users, could you please try applying the attached patch
against AUCTeX from CVS and check if the Biber stuff also works as
expected?
The patch file applied cleanly to my CVS version. At the moment I'm
working with it and everything seems to be fine. If I found a weird
behaviour or a bug I'll report it here!
Great.
My main problem when compiling that patch was that there were a lot of
differences between Philips files and the AUCTeX CVS version that didn't
look Biber-related. Maybe that were general improvements and fixes of
the AUCTeX code, or maybe it was just an older AUCTeX version he worked
on. Since I couldn't judge that, I preferred the stock AUCTeX versions
in those cases.
Tassilo,
My impression is that Philip's files were based on auctex-11.86, but he
could confirm. Based on that assumption, I did a 3-way merge (using
diff3) of Philip's files and CVS head, using auctex-11.86 as common
ancestor. My patches are different from yours in a few places.
I don't want to waste everyone's time, so I'll do a little testing
before sending my patches to the list.
Ken
_______________________________________________
auctex mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex
