On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:32:23PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 08:11:09AM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > >> > >> Am I mistaken or nobody gave Uwe the +1 to do this format increment? > > > > As discussed in the other thread, you are correct. > > So what are we going to do now? > > The tex2lyx tests are currently failing because of wrong versions (I guess > because Guillaume did resolve them with git and did not regenerate them > after merging his patches with the ACM layout update). > > Does anybody give a +1 subsequently for the ACM layout update? If yes, we > should update the version numbers of the tex2lyx tests. If not, I propose > that Uwe reverts the layout file changes and makes the 504-505 step an empty > conversion.
I agree. Unfortunately, our layout and lyx2lyx experts do not have much time. Richard or Jürgen, do you have time to review the patch/commit? > If we do none of the two options then I do not know what our rules are good > for. Indeed. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
