On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Richard Heck <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/17/2014 10:30 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Kornel Benko <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, 17. September 2014 um 09:06:00, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Kornel Benko <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Montag, 15. September 2014 um 14:48:32, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMHO, if bibtex exits with errors, the compilation _is_ not OK, so
>>>>>>> the users should get appropriate error message (and break
>>>>>>> compilation).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Six out of seven days I wake up and I agree. But one day a week I
>>>>>> think about the LyX user who upgrades and the document stops
>>>>>> compiling. It's a regression from the point of view of the user.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this sense, if we correct some bad behaviour, it would be a
>>>>> regression too.
>>>>> I am not ready to adopt this view :)
>>>>
>>>> For discussion on a very similar topic (possibly a specific case of
>>>> the fix proposed here), see this discussion:
>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg183570.html
>>>> We received a lot of reports that "LyX doesn't compile my document
>>>> anymore". Vincent made the reasonable decision to suggest reverting
>>>> the bug fix and a couple of other developers agreed.
>>>
>>> I understood it that way, that the fix were postponed only.
>>>          Quoting Vincent:
>>>                  "Then, if we succeed to quickly release the next major
>>> release we can
>>>                   error out on BibTeX errors as we do now."
>>
>> Well you do not quote the part right before that which says
>> "as soon as possible we replace the error by a warning when we detect
>> a BibTeX error stating that in the future this will lead to an error."
>> - I interpret this to mean that first we need a released LyX version
>> with the warning. I also supposed that it was meant a major version.
>
>
> I think that meant we could do it in a minor version. Like the next one. And
> I think it's a
> good idea.

I'm fine with this but only because I'm fine with not going through
the warning phase. I think there are very few LyX users that install
consecutive minor versions. Out of the 10 or so people I know running
LyX, the median LyX version is probably 2.0.5. Also, anyone on a Linux
distribution installing from their repos will have a few minor
versions skipped.

> Not issuing any kind of error here is wrong. The user thinks
> everything went
> well, and it did not.

Agreed.

Scott

Reply via email to