Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I meant cleanup as "redesign". There is a look of things that are
>> simply not designed design in LyX.
>
> And you are sure that your ideas on design cannot benefit from outside
> input. If wish I were you.
Ideas and design can be discussed without any code. I did that a number
of time and asked for comment every time. I am of course far from
perfect but my experience is that only someone who is deeply aware of
the relevant code can help you. Most of the time, there is *nobody*.
>
>> If for every conceptual change we need everyone to understand the
>> direction, I wish you good luck.
>
> Someone else would be good already.
In those rare cases, all is good.
>
>>>> The svn log and trac diff are there to review for all. One commit
>>>> can be reverted if it is found bad.
>>> This is true for a small commits. But making architectural changes and
>>> then reverting them is the sign that something is quite wrong.
>> I don't think we ever reverted an architectural change of mine. And
>> I've done a lot of architectural changes in 1.5.
>
> It is not me who is proposing to revert architectural commits.
And I am perfectly fine with the idea of an evolving design. Nothing has
to be set in stone. I actually modified the kernel/GUI interaction a
number of times already, and I am doing it again with this patch. I
reckon this is OK as long as everything work more or less the same.
Abdel.
