On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 at 03:11, Richard Kimberly Heck <rikih...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/26/22 20:01, Thibaut Cuvelier wrote: > > Riki, let me know :)! > > In another email, I said: > > I am planning to do the tarball tomorrow, so I guess the question is > whether these changes can be **completed** by then. Since they don't > affect really core code, I'm not too worried about them being mature yet. > > So if you think this is really done, go ahead. If you're not sure, then > let's wait. > I don't know what I could add or remove. The tests pass and I manually checked that the new behaviour is the expected one. > I'm attaching a new version of the patch with the updated layout2layout > script (including a change for layout version 98 that was skipped, if I > understand correctly). There is also a second patch that updates the > layouts. > > That's a bit confusing. You just need to handle up to format 98. It's the > OLD format number that's being tested in those conditions. So you want if > 87 <= format <= 98. > I misunderstood the script, then! I fixed that locally. > That said, are we sure there's nothing to do here? Suppose someone has a > custom layout for some remark-like construction. Do we just want to leave > that as is? > Since it's an extension of features that have never been released (apart from alphas and betas), I don't think there are many such layouts; I suppose that these users will have a look at the final set of features when 2.4 is out. Even if there were, I really don't know what I could do: even if the custom layout is a new theorem-like environment, maybe the user is completely OK with what they currently have (maybe they have a wrapper tag that does what they want, or they don't care about wrapper tags at all). The only conversion that would be mostly safe is detecting the pattern I was using in the layout files, which is maybe too specific.
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
