Dear all, Thanks to the help of several LyX developers who addressed needed issues for 2.2.0rc1, we are getting close. I would like to propose Tuesday as the tentative date to tag and tar rc1. There are still some issues that are pending but I hope that they can be resolved by then.
Georg is taking care of the translations of math environments, which hopefully will receive enough attention from translators by Monday. Günter has proposed layout patches to respond to changes in updated LaTeX class files at the following two threads: (acmsiggraph) https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=ndgr7a%24kuf%241%40ger.gmane.org (aastex6) https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=ndj02g%244ht%241%40ger.gmane.org In addition to the on-going layout discussion, there is still a question of which Qt version we should release the Windows 2.2.0 binary with. Shipping with Qt 5.6.0 instead of 5.5.1 would have the following advantages: 1. Uwe has been testing LyX built with 5.6.0 and it works well for him. 2. It is faster for Uwe. 3. It has long-term support. 4. It brings some features, such as better support for HiDPI. See here for more: https://wiki.qt.io/New_Features_in_Qt_5.6 The disadvantages of using Qt 5.6.0 instead of 5.5.1 are the following: 1. Although Uwe tested and it works for him, no one else has tested. We would thus lose all Windows-specific testing effort of the beta testers. 2. There is a mysterious crash with the MSVC2015 http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10009 which does not happen with a merged build. Since we do not understand why a merged build "fixes" the crash we do not know what other problems might be created by the same cause. 3. We would ignore standard best practice in professional software development (which would be to switch compilers at the beginning of a development cycle, not right before a release). My own opinion is that we should use 5.5.1, unless there is an important bug exposed in LyX that 5.6.0 fixes (and that 5.5.1 does not). Using 5.6.0 would require switching compilers. I personally don't know much about the dangers of this, but some LyX developers do know a lot about this topic and they are worried. If someone knows more than I do about a topic, I trust them more than I do myself. In any case, Uwe has said that he can provide rc1 with both Qt5.5.1/MSVC2010 and also a Qt 5.6 version. The only decision is which should be the official one. Regarding the Mac installers, Stephan can build with Qt versions 4.8.6, 5.4.2, 5.5.1 and 5.6.0. I think this is great and I'll be interested in particular with which Qt versions the bugs #9992 and #9985 can be reproduced. I think there is wide agreement that the official Mac installer will ship with 5.5.1. Where should we provide the unofficial installers (i.e. where should they be stored)? Should we mention the unofficial installers in the announce email? I am tempted to say that we should not advertise them at all, and only mention them when a user reports a problem with the 5.5.1 build so that we can see if the problem is due to the Qt version. Otherwise the testing effort might be spread across several installers instead of focused on the official installer. The following two issues are not blockers. If there is no further action or opinions regarding them, they will not make it into rc1 (and thus not into 2.2.0). If someone thinks they are important and should be addressed for rc1, please let us know. 1. At #10019 Guillaume fixed some ui regressions. The patch seems short and logical and Stephan has tested it with success on Mac. I would still like to see if someone can test it on Windows before it is included. If anyone with Qt knowledge can take a look at the patch, that would also be nice. I think normally I would not want any .ui changes in at this point (for the reasons I listed on that ticket), but since they are fixing regressions it would be nice to have. If someone thinks this is important and we do not get a Windows user to test, we could potentially put the patch in and make sure some of our Windows rc1 testers test specifically this dialog. 2. Enrico has provided a patch regarding separators here: https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=20160313003332.GA8700%40giove It is a file format change, I think it would be nice to include because otherwise users will have to get used to new behavior in 2.2.0 and then get used to changed behavior again in 2.3.0. I do not understand the issue though since I rarely use separators. Thank you very much to those who have done work to discuss and fix the pressing issues for 2.2.0. I know many such issues were not fun and I really appreciate your help. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
