Le 22/02/2016 19:23, Georg Baum a écrit :
Guillaume Munch wrote:
Le 21/02/2016 20:52, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 06:06:14PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
I also don't see a reason why this cannot be done now since otherwise
users of than languages would have to wait 2 more years until LyX 2.3.
Every LyX release in the past few years was further delayed by last-minute
requests like this one. If we stop these last-minute changes, and improve
the test coverage we can speed up the release process a lot.
Besides that, every LyX release misses some features that are important for
some users. The only way to avoid this is to throw a massive amount of
developer man power upon LyX, and we all know that this won't happen.
I agree that this is unfortunate. But the same is true for any feature.
The feature freeze was over two months ago. Now we are focusing only on
bug fixes. I do not think it would be fair to make an exception for this
patch.
Exactly. Such exceptions punish those who play by the rules and reward those
who ignore the rules. This does not mean that I don't like the support for
the new languages. It is a very good thing to have, just not right now.
I would not be shocked if an exception was made. Uwe's point is that it
is low risk/high reward and that being delayed until 2.3 is quite
significant. I do not remember seeing another patch in this situation.
Because they have not been proposed. I have several easy features or bug
fixes I'd like to put in (e.g. http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/7404), but I
did not propose them after the freeze because I assumed that the freeze was
a freeze. Instead, I used my time for reviewing needed changes, and for
fixing show stopper bugs.
* Is the lack of these languages easy to work around if the patch is
postponed?
Yes. Load babel manually in the preamble, and disable the automatic loading
via preferences (language settings->language package=none)
* Is there any risk that the settings might be wrong (especially in ways
that cannot be fixed without another file format increase)?
Yes. For every new language we need a native speaker to verify that the
result is correct. For example, support for urdu was added at
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/7eca5d94/lyxgit, and later it turned out
that it was completely unusable, so that it was removed again at
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/cf9c7ad108fbc/lyxgit.
Thank you for your taking time for making these points. So nobody seem
to agree that this is as low risk / high reward as Uwe thinks (I cannot
judge by myself since I am not familiar with this part of LyX; for
instance, I thought that this would provide also spell-checking and
support for multi-language documents). Maybe this is the reply that Uwe
was looking for.
However, I still think that Uwe was justified in asking the question. A
rule allows one to say "no" without having to justify oneself but does
not preclude exceptions. I find it a bit counter-productive to try to
justify it now with arguments that are (I find) weak; for instance #7404
is nowhere near comparable: it is much more substantial and you targeted
it to 2.2.x yourself, whereas the 2-year delay was Uwe's most compelling
argument.
