On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:49:06PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > > Entirely wasting my time, but ... > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:33:10PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > I guess you'd hear me as soon anybody tries to _release_ 1.4.0 like this. > > Are you seriously stating you'll veto this ? AFAIK you don't have this > right over the menus.
Certainly not. But not shouting 'veto' does not mean it is unhearable. > > Groundwork? It has been like that all the time. People are used to it. > > If there is no technical reason for the change and if there is no > > consensus it should stay as it was. > > There is consensus amongst everybody except you. That includes Lars and > JMarc. If so I might not be able to change it. This still doesn't mean it goes unheard. > There are technical reasons for the change. Again, you're too lazy to > actually argue the points from what I can see. Every time I reply with a > detailed rationale, you go quiet. I'm not stupid enough to try again. Betting the farm on that? > > I've been using LyX for six years now, and I find > > > > - Layout -> Document > > - Layout -> Paragraph > > - Layout -> Character > > > > very logical now. > > The phrasing of this sentence makes my point perfectly I think. It was intended to be phrased like that. > For the last time, if *you* (or any other user) doesn't want to make the > change, use classic.ui ! You mean the thing that won't show even a single item in the toolbar? Maybe I am getting a bit too conservative nowadays, but I would not consider this as 'no change'. > [Detailed explanation elided as you will neither listen nor respond to > it] No problem. > Furthermore, I count *one* user complaining so far, plus Michael S. > asking about the rationale for the changes. So one of us should practise incrementing binary numbers with overflow ;-) Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
