Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Hi Georg, > > it is OK with me if you reverted this for good reasons, I only want to > understand why you reverted and how the feature I implemented will be > available now.
I reverted to get rid of a regression you introduced. If you want more details, please read the commit log and the thread I referred to in the commit log, since we discussed the possible alternatives in detail over the last days. > I sent you a test file to make clear what I wanted to achieve with the > box alignment and that I cannot get this via paragraph alignment. So how > can I now get this to work after your reversion? For now I am now forced > to use ERT but the idea was to get rid of it. Yes, you have to use ERT for now, which is a pity, but the best compromise we could find. Nobody volunteered to implement the proper solution up to now. > I saw JMarc's proposal and this looks good. Was it your plan to revert > to open the door for another solution like JMarc's. No, I wanted to get rid of the regression. I hope that somebody will implement a better solution in the future. I am aware that this throws away some work of yours, and I don't like that. To avoid wasting time like this in the future, I suggest to discuss such changes on the list before starting to work on them. Then we will not have to find out afterwards that a much better alternative exists, and no time will be wasted towards a dead end. Georg
