On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:05:46PM +0000, Richard Heck wrote: > On 10/24/2017 01:29 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 08:44:07AM +0000, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 09:36:56PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > >>> On 10/22/2017 06:19 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 06:37:06AM +0000, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Also, I think we should consider Günter's lyx2lyx patch [1], but I > >>>>> didn't have time to thoroughly review it myself. > >>>> Will anyone have time to take a look at the patch by Wednesday? > >>> I could look at the code from a code-triaging point of view, but I have > >>> not followed > >>> the controversy about this, so someone would need to tell me what the > >>> code is supposed > >>> to do. > >> I don't think this is a change that should be performed at a RC1 stage, > >> frankly. It is too risky and of dubious utility. > > Thanks for bringing up this concern. The patch is not trivial. Further, > > the patch only deals with backwards compatibility. From what I recall, > > we place a higher importance on forward conversion, and although we do > > make efforts to provide good backward compatibility, I believe that we > > have at times knowingly not implemented certain functionality in our > > backwards conversion. Indeed, our "Development" manual covers this: > > > > While the conversion routine is required to produce a document that > > is equivalent to the old version, the requirements of the reversion > > are not that strict. If possible, try to produce a proper reversion, > > using ERT if needed, but for some features this might be too > > complicated. In this case, the minimum requirement of the reversion > > routine is that it produces a valid document which can be read by an > > older LyX. If absolutely needed, even data loss is allowed for the > > reversion. > > > > The current code (without the patch) clearly already satisfies the > > "minimum requirement". All this to say: I don't think the patch is too > > important for 2.3.0 and in my opinion I'm fine if we do not put it in. > > > > Since I don't think the patch is critical, and since we are hopefully a > > couple of days from going forward with a freeze for RC1, I propose that > > we should only consider this patch if a developer gives a "very > > confident" +1, and if we have an extensive test suite. > > The whole lyx2lyx test suite issue is one we should sort out, but we don't > have any such thing at this point. > > I don't have a strong opinion on the issues that led to this patch, but > it seems to me that we aredoing a lot here, too much for this late in the > game.
OK let's take this off the list for 2.3.0 then. > The actual problem is the deletion of ZWSP characters, which 72a488d7 > said was needed "so that they don't accumulate". The concern here, I take > it, is that reverting to a pre-2.3.x format and then re-importing might > lead to a stack of these things. Why not just make sure that doesn't > happen? I.e., check if there's a stack of them, and if so fix that? Is this something you think we should consider for rc1? Thanks for taking a look, Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
