Re: Dictionaries location for LyX on Linux

Stephan Witt wrote: > > I don't know how to get the missing version 2 thesauri. > > Your distro has the same problem and provides format 1 instead. > > But it is usable only for version 1 read capable thesaurus implementations. > > LyX cannot use them. > > Sorry, I've looked at the wrong place and

Re: Trunk is completely frozen for any commits [unfrozen]

Pavel Sanda wrote: > Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > > > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > > Stephan, Joost I plan to announce the whole thing not later than > > > > tomorrow night, it would be nice to have binaries on ftp. > > > > > > both are t

Re: Dictionaries location for LyX on Linux

Am 05.05.2011 um 07:36 schrieb Stephan Witt: > Am 04.05.2011 um 23:42 schrieb Pavel Sanda: > >> Stephan Witt wrote: >>> Sorry, I think this must be was a side effect of some change - at first the >>> debug >>> output had path names... ... >> so there seems to be difference in header. >> is it ou

Re: Dictionaries location for LyX on Linux

Am 04.05.2011 um 23:42 schrieb Pavel Sanda: > Stephan Witt wrote: >> Sorry, I think this must be was a side effect of some change - at first the >> debug >> output had path names... > > Stephan i have next problems. i see you coded some checking for the header of > thesauru files. > you followe

Re: Asynchronous Export - Essential Feature, Not Bloat (was Re: Goals for 2.1)

On 05/04/2011 04:48 PM, Rob Oakes wrote: On May 4, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Rob Oakes wrote: The book I've been working on takes nearly 15 minutes to compile.\ this looks horrible. what hardware and OS do you use? Not looks, is horrible. But, in LyX's defense, it's a very comp

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 07:45:44PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: > On 04.05.2011 14:26, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > >On 04/05/2011 00:50, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >>Hi everyone, > >>As a typical start of a new release cycle I want to poll > >>- what features are a must in the next release; > > >

Re: SVN mirror of git

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 09:45:04AM -0600, Rob Oakes wrote: > With all that said, I did have a question regarding our existing > infrastructure. Whatever model we end up settling on, would it be > possible to mirror the git master branch to SVN? (Basically the same > thing we do for the git users,

Re: Trunk is completely frozen for any commits [unfrozen]

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > Stephan, Joost I plan to announce the whole thing not later than > > > tomorrow night, it would be nice to have binaries on ftp. > > > > both are there. windows guys, are you able to

Re: Trunk is completely frozen for any commits [unfrozen]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > Stephan, Joost I plan to announce the whole thing not later than > > tomorrow night, it would be nice to have binaries on ftp. > > both are there. windows guys, are you able to reproduce > http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:27:36PM +0200, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: > Il 04/05/2011 17:16, Rob Oakes ha scritto: > > > >>Software bloat is a term used to describe the tendency of newer computer > >>programs to have a larger installation footprint, or have many unnecessary > >>features that are not u

Re: Development of a development model

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:16:13PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > Close to the current svn model, but allow people to use branches for > > > non-trivial feature sets if they like? > > > > +1 > > > > Then

Re: Dictionaries location for LyX on Linux

Stephan Witt wrote: > Sorry, I think this must be was a side effect of some change - at first the > debug > output had path names... Stephan i have next problems. i see you coded some checking for the header of thesauru files. you followed some specification or just guessed? while en thesaurus w

Re: Trunk is completely frozen for any commits [unfrozen]

Pavel Sanda wrote: > Stephan, Joost I plan to announce the whole thing not later than > tomorrow night, it would be nice to have binaries on ftp. both are there. windows guys, are you able to reproduce http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/7528 on your boxes? pavel

Re: Goals for 2.1

Le 04/05/11 16:52, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : On 04/05/2011 16:32, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: * Use CMake as our build system for all platforms I am strongly against this. I should have said: * Use CMake as our _main_ build s

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 09:21:56PM +0100, José Matos wrote: > On Wednesday 04 May 2011 20:00:06 Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > He means that who prefers the 80 chars limit also likes autotools. > > Has he (royal he) read the files created by automake? :-) > > No 80 chars limits anywhere. :-D I thi

Re: 80 chars rule (was: Too much options in LyX)

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita > > > but i find the two lines better. you don't? > > > > > > Which do you like better ? > > > > string const name = fromqstr(objectName()); > >

Re: Goals for 2.1

On May 4, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Stephan Witt wrote: > Am 04.05.2011 um 18:57 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: > >> Wouldn't it be nice if you could generate the .app bundle right from within >> XCode? > > Not really. I promised to provide the .app bundle as nightly build - by a > cron job. > I don't k

Re: Feature request: the missing element in the LyX office suite

Le 04/05/11 18:42, Pavel Sanda a écrit : i think we should be good at editing text and typesetting. preparing the basic material like drawings, tables, computing numbers etc should do different apps which do it much better then we will ever do. I could not agree more. JMarc

Re: SVN mirror of git

On May 4, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > Probably not, but I don't understand the problem here. What are these > branches about ? They are packaging branches. Launchpad (Ubuntu's development website and package management system) provides tools to import code from developer

Re: 80 chars rule (was: Too much options in LyX)

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita > > but i find the two lines better. you don't? > > > Which do you like better ? > > string const name = fromqstr(objectName()); > visibility = guiApp->toolbars().defaultVisibility(name); > > or >

Re: 80 chars rule (was: Too much options in LyX)

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char > limit > > is a pita ? > > another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita > but i find the two lines better. you don't? Wh

Re: SVN mirror of git

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Rob Oakes wrote: > Dear Developers, > > I've been following the debate regarding development models with some > interest. It sounds as though some people are ready to move to git now. > While I'm not thrilled about that (I don't care for git very much), I think

Re: Asynchronous Export - Essential Feature, Not Bloat (was Re: Goals for 2.1)

On May 4, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Rob Oakes wrote: >> The book I've been working on takes nearly 15 minutes to compile.\ > this looks horrible. what hardware and OS do you use? Not looks, is horrible. But, in LyX's defense, it's a very complicated book and the export time is p

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:58:33PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think that more attention should be put in the memory footprint. I > have > > > the impression that LyX is becoming a bloatware. > > > > > > > >

Re: Asynchronous Export - Essential Feature, Not Bloat (was Re: Goals for 2.1)

Rob Oakes wrote: > The book I've been working on takes nearly 15 minutes to compile. this looks horrible. what hardware and OS do you use? how many pages of text and pictures? any external-insets processing? does it change with second run when image cache is active? pavel

Re: 80 chars rule (was: Too much options in LyX)

> > > > that said if you agree on those few exception from 80 rule then i'll be > > satisfied with such outcome of our flame. > > Exempting certain constructs from the rule seems to be more platable > then to drop the rule completely... > > In the case of the LYXERR0 exception: I don't care about

Re: 80 chars rule (was: Too much options in LyX)

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:43:05PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > anyone around strongly against 100-char wide rule? > > > > YES, me ! > > hmm, i should also count caps lock and exclamation marks when doing > next emoticons statistics... :) > > > "Normal Code" pl

Asynchronous Export - Essential Feature, Not Bloat (was Re: Goals for 2.1)

>> Again, I am not going to point the finger against something in particular. >> I would like that major attention be paid to the increasead bloat with >> respect to the benefits that come from a particular feature. >> >> As it is clear that I was against the export in thread/qprocess features, >>

Re: "Start" page

>> I was thinking of the "home" or "start" tab (or maybe just as a background >> of the work area, instead of the LyX logo) where you can choose things like >> "Create new presentation", "Create a letter", a list of recent documents, >> link to option dialog, maybe an RSS feed, things like that

Re: "Start" page

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:58 AM, venom00 wrote: > Vincent wrote: >> What is the next feature you will work on ? > > I was thinking of the "home" or "start" tab (or maybe just as a background of > the work area, instead of the LyX logo) where you can choose things like > "Create new presentation",

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wednesday 04 May 2011 20:00:06 Enrico Forestieri wrote: > He means that who prefers the 80 chars limit also likes autotools. Has he (royal he) read the files created by automake? :-) No 80 chars limits anywhere. :-D And FWIW autoconf is a nice tool. -- José Abílio

Re: Feature request: the missing element in the LyX office suite

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Andrew Parsloe wrote: > For a computer with limited memory (1 GB seemed big when I bought it), where > there's a lot of disk activity with multiple programs running, being able to > work in LyX alone would be helpful. > If computer resources are your biggest concer

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > Again, I am not going to point the finger against something in particular. > I would like that major attention be paid to the increasead bloat with > respect to the benefits that come from a particular feature. > > As it is clear that I wa

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Abdelrazak Younes wrote: >> I will tentatively answer for you :-P >> >> 1) asynchronous export/preview > > now i remember :) but i thought it was more question about timing (too late in > dev cycle) than feature per se. if we kicked it out of th

Re: LyX opening future versions

Am 04.05.2011 um 21:57 schrieb Pavel Sanda: > venom00 wrote: >> I have no idea of how heavy is gunpg, but I agree with that is probably too >> much, HTTPS is more than enough. Network stuff are well managed by Qt, aren't >> they? > > no, i rather meant that the whole download idea if not good way

Re: LyX opening future versions

venom00 wrote: > I have no idea of how heavy is gunpg, but I agree with that is probably too > much, HTTPS is more than enough. Network stuff are well managed by Qt, aren't > they? no, i rather meant that the whole download idea if not good way to follow ;) pavel

Re: Dictionaries location for LyX on Linux

Stephan Witt wrote: > dictionaries exactly there - bundled within LyX. Of course - like I did > it for aspell - one easily can extend the lookup for the hunspell dictionaries > and add another location to search for, a configure option is a good idea to > make it easy to change for the linux packag

RE: LyX opening future versions

> something like we do with packages. Yes, but the Debian example was more notable to me :) > > No need for HTTPS. > > so on the top of introducing network stuff into lyx, we will > also incorporate > libraries of gnupg into our code :) I have no idea of how heavy is gunpg, but I agree with t

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:40:06PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: > On 04.05.2011 20:34, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > >On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:21:18PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: > >>On 04.05.2011 19:38, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > >>>- Missing ability to kill converters if they got stalled. You have to

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 07:28:06PM +0100, José Matos wrote: > On Wednesday 04 May 2011 18:58:34 Peter Kümmel wrote: > > I assume as long as we have a 80 character limit we will have autotools. > > ?? > > I do not follow the logic. :-) He means that who prefers the 80 chars limit also likes autot

Re: LyX opening future versions

venom00 wrote: > without the proper authentication process. However if you prefer we can sign > the > files with PGP, something like Debian does with packages. something like we do with packages. > No need for HTTPS. so on the top of introducing network stuff into lyx, we will also incorporate

RE: Goals for 2.1

Follow this thread is impossible for me :P Please try to split where needed. venom00

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04.05.2011 20:34, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:21:18PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: On 04.05.2011 19:38, Enrico Forestieri wrote: - Missing ability to kill converters if they got stalled. You have to wait for a timeout and cannot kill them because they are in a thread

RE: LyX opening future versions

> venom00 wrote: > > Well... But they didn't generate a fake certificate for lyx.org :P > > yet. P To be honest I think that the last thing a malicious cracker would do, having the possibility to create trusted certificates, is using them for lyx.org. Private keys have not been compromised, they

Re: Goals for 2.1

Am 04.05.2011 um 20:18 schrieb Peter Kümmel: > On 04.05.2011 20:00, Stephan Witt wrote: >> Am 04.05.2011 um 19:33 schrieb Kornel: >> >>> Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Stephan Witt: Am 04.05.2011 um 18:57 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: >>> ... > So we have to work on it... and I am confide

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:21:18PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: > On 04.05.2011 19:38, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > >- Missing ability to kill converters if they got stalled. You have to > > wait for a timeout and cannot kill them because they are in a thread > > of your same process. > > I don't

Re: LyX opening future versions

venom00 wrote: > Well... But they didn't generate a fake certificate for lyx.org :P yet. p

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wednesday 04 May 2011 18:58:34 Peter Kümmel wrote: > I assume as long as we have a 80 character limit we will have autotools. ?? I do not follow the logic. :-) -- José Abílio

Re: 80 chars rule (was: Too much options in LyX)

Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > On 04/05/2011 19:38, Pavel Sanda wrote: >> Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: >>> Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char >>> limit >>> is a pita ? >> another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita >> but i find the two lines bette

RE: LyX opening future versions

> Yes. The page above sounds harmless. Read http://www.h- > online.com/news/item/SSL-meltdown-forces-browser-developers-to- > update-1213358.html if you want a better picture. Basically, > revoking of SSL > certificates is broken by design, so the stolen certificates > need to be > disabled by

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04.05.2011 19:38, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:58:33PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I think that more attention should be put in the memory footprint. I have the impression that LyX is becoming a bloatware. Apart from which features are (un)necessary, can y

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04.05.2011 20:00, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 04.05.2011 um 19:33 schrieb Kornel: Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Stephan Witt: Am 04.05.2011 um 18:57 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: ... So we have to work on it... and I am confident that it is possible to achieve that. I hope I can find the time

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 07:50:59PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: > > ;) I hope we find a feature which also Enrico likes. That is very difficult, apparently :) > And there were already better times: > http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg106565.html That offer is still valid, of

Re: Release manager for 2.1

Pavel Sanda wrote: > Dear all, > > as announced from the very beginning my position applied for 2.0 only. > I've put lot of my energy into 2.0 and need to take a rest for some time. Pavel, thank you very much for this energy. IMO you managed it very well, being the hard liner when it was neede

Re: 80 chars rule (was: Too much options in LyX)

On 04/05/2011 19:38, Pavel Sanda wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char limit is a pita ? another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita but i find the two lines better. you don't? Part of the two exceptions: c

Re: Goals for 2.1

Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Stephan Witt: > Am 04.05.2011 um 19:33 schrieb Kornel: > > Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Stephan Witt: > > > Am 04.05.2011 um 18:57 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: > > ... > > > > > > So we have to work on it... and I am confident that it is possible to > > > > achie

Re: Goals for 2.1

Am 04.05.2011 um 20:00 schrieb Stephan Witt: > Am 04.05.2011 um 19:33 schrieb Kornel: > >> Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Stephan Witt: >>> Am 04.05.2011 um 18:57 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: >> ... So we have to work on it... and I am confident that it is possible to achieve that. I ho

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04.05.2011 18:57, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 18:57, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 04.05.2011 um 18:31 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: On 04/05/2011 18:22, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:37:47PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 17:31, Enrico Forestieri wro

Re: Goals for 2.1

Am 04.05.2011 um 19:33 schrieb Kornel: > Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Stephan Witt: > > Am 04.05.2011 um 18:57 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: > ... > > > So we have to work on it... and I am confident that it is possible to > > > achieve that. I hope I can find the time to explore this soon. > >

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04.05.2011 15:54, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 14:26, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 00:50, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi everyone, As a typical start of a new release cycle I want to poll - what features are a must in the next release; Features: * Git based Embedded L

Re: Goals for 2.1

Enrico Forestieri wrote: > As it is clear that I was against the export in thread/qprocess features, > I will take this as an example. When I export or preview something in LyX, > I simply wait (only for some seconds!) the end of the operation. So, the > fact that I can still tinker with the keyboa

RE: LyX opening future versions

venom00 wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Georg Baum >> wrote: >> > An automatic download button is too dangerous IMHO. If you >> offer that you >> > need to keep track of security issues, e.g. the recent SSL >> certificate >> > desaster. >> > >> Of curiosity, which one? Wikipedia doesn't

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04.05.2011 19:11, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: I will tentatively answer for you :-P 1) asynchronous export/preview now i remember :) but i thought it was more question about timing (too late in dev cycle) than feature per se. if we kicked it out of the tree for the second t

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04.05.2011 14:26, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 00:50, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi everyone, As a typical start of a new release cycle I want to poll - what features are a must in the next release; Features: * Git based Embedded LyX. Couldn't we "somehow" re-use QtCreators p

Re: 80 chars rule (was: Too much options in LyX)

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char limit > is a pita ? another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita but i find the two lines better. you don't? pavel diff --git a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiToolbar.cpp b/src/frontends/q

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:58:33PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > > > > I think that more attention should be put in the memory footprint. I have > > the impression that LyX is becoming a bloatware. > > > > > Apart from which features are (un)necessary, can you say where you think > tha

Re: Goals for 2.1

Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Stephan Witt: > Am 04.05.2011 um 18:57 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: ... > > So we have to work on it... and I am confident that it is possible to > > achieve that. I hope I can find the time to explore this soon. > > That would be interesting, indeed. Another problem

Re: Goals for 2.1

Am 04.05.2011 um 18:57 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: > On 04/05/2011 18:57, Stephan Witt wrote: >> Am 04.05.2011 um 18:31 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: >> >>> On 04/05/2011 18:22, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:37:47PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > On 04/05/2011 17:31,

Re: Goals for 2.1

Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > I will tentatively answer for you :-P > > 1) asynchronous export/preview now i remember :) but i thought it was more question about timing (too late in dev cycle) than feature per se. if we kicked it out of the tree for the second time Peter must get heart attack :) but

Re: Feature request: the missing element in the LyX office suite

On 04/05/2011 18:42, Pavel Sanda wrote: Andrew Parsloe wrote: Yes, but it would be nice to be able to sum a table in LyX without having to fire up Gnumeric or Excel or whatever. (To take matters to extremes, you this is the same as request that we should introduce some 'simple' graphics editor

Re: Feature request: the missing element in the LyX office suite

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: > I'm posting this question because I also feel that the integration of > external tools is not yet as simple and immediate as it could be, however > this can be fixed by little modifications to the GUI interaction model, not > really by re-

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:59, Enrico Forestieri wrote: So, much ado about nothing? Exactly.

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:57, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 04.05.2011 um 18:31 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: On 04/05/2011 18:22, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:37:47PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 17:31, Enrico Forestieri wrote: I really don't understand the cygwin argum

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:31:06PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > On 04/05/2011 18:22, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > >Still, I don't get what you mean. I successfully use autotools for > >building a MinGW version of LyX without any fuss. > > Are you playing with words? I know that; and you can eve

Re: Goals for 2.1

> > > I think that more attention should be put in the memory footprint. I have > the impression that LyX is becoming a bloatware. > > Apart from which features are (un)necessary, can you say where you think that we should look first to improve on the subject ? Do you think existing features can be

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:44, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:32:02PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote: Enrico Forestieri wrote: And after I do that they will magically disappear? What I can do is voting pro or against a particular feature when it is proposed, but it is the majority that w

Re: Goals for 2.1

Am 04.05.2011 um 18:31 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: > On 04/05/2011 18:22, Enrico Forestieri wrote: >> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:37:47PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: >>> On 04/05/2011 17:31, Enrico Forestieri wrote: I really don't understand the cygwin argument here. >>> I was answering you

Re: Feature request: the missing element in the LyX office suite

On Wed, 4 May 2011, Pavel Sanda wrote: i think we should be good at editing text and typesetting. preparing the basic material like drawings, tables, computing numbers etc should do different apps which do it much better then we will ever do. we can create some reasonable binding to them, but th

Re: Package name for Branch 2.0

Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > Of course. I am not whining about simple "install". It is the package > > manager (e.g. dpkg on debian) who does not allow to install two > > different versions of the same package. > > Ah, now I understand what you mean. However, it still st

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:32:02PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > And after I do that they will magically disappear? What I can do is > > voting pro or against a particular feature when it is proposed, but > > it is the majority that wins, and the majority like bloat, ap

Re: Feature request: the missing element in the LyX office suite

Andrew Parsloe wrote: > Yes, but it would be nice to be able to sum a table in LyX without having > to fire up Gnumeric or Excel or whatever. (To take matters to extremes, you this is the same as request that we should introduce some 'simple' graphics editor for pictures. after simple editor is

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:24:58PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > yes i can translate the word bloat. what i wanted was that you pick up > > > particular examples of features which shouldn't be (/haven't been) > > > introduced. > > > > And after I do that they will magi

Re: Adv F&R Bug

On 05/04/2011 10:32 AM, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: > Il 04/05/2011 05:16, Richard Heck ha scritto: >> What I meant was: Suppose you have two documents open. Now you open the >> F&R dock. If you switch to the other document, then, presumably, the >> language or whatever should update. But it doesn't.

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:22, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:37:47PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 17:31, Enrico Forestieri wrote: I really don't understand the cygwin argument here. I was answering your argument about autotools portability to Windows in advance :-P

Re: Feature request: the missing element in the LyX office suite

On May 4, 2011, at 3:26 AM, Andrew Parsloe wrote: > > > On 4/05/2011 9:59 p.m., Liviu Andronic wrote: >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Andrew Parsloe >> wrote: >>> Yes, but it would be nice to be able to sum a table in LyX without having to >>> fire up Gnumeric or Excel or whatever. >>> >>

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wednesday 04 May 2011 13:26:51 Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Cleanup and refactoring: > * Fix (rewrite) the graphics backend mess. ... and finally merging graphics with external insets? That has been the holly grail for the last eleven years. :-) -- José Abílio

Re: Goals for 2.1

Enrico Forestieri wrote: > And after I do that they will magically disappear? What I can do is > voting pro or against a particular feature when it is proposed, but > it is the majority that wins, and the majority like bloat, apparently. so what do you think are the top 3 bloat features? (just cu

Re: Package name for Branch 2.0

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:13:41PM +0200, Kornel wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > What I mean is that with the autotools I can configure using > > --with-version-suffix=-2.0 in one case and --with-version-suffix=-2.1 > > in the other case, obtaining 2 different insta

Re: Goals for 2.1

Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > yes i can translate the word bloat. what i wanted was that you pick up > > particular examples of features which shouldn't be (/haven't been) > > introduced. > > And after I do that they will magically disappear? What I can do is well at least i will know what are you

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:37:47PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > On 04/05/2011 17:31, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > >I really don't understand the cygwin argument here. > > I was answering your argument about autotools portability to Windows > in advance :-P Still, I don't get what you mean. I s

Re: Package name for Branch 2.0

Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:44:06PM +0200, Kornel wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:25:02PM +0200, Kornel wrote: > > > > I would like to change the actual name "lyx" to "lyx20" as we h

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:58, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: No, we have a cross-platform program, we need a real cross-platform build system, as simple as that. And yes, cygwin is just another platform, but it is not our main Windows platform. i dont have hard opinions whether cmake should

Re: Package name for Branch 2.0

On 04/05/2011 17:53, Enrico Forestieri wrote: What I mean is that with the autotools I can configure using --with-version-suffix=-2.0 in one case and --with-version-suffix=-2.1 in the other case, obtaining 2 different installations that do not conflict at all. I could even install 2 different fla

Re: Goals for 2.1

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:40:13PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > can you be explicit? i have problems to follow what in particular are > > > you talking about. > > > > I f you go to the bottom of that wikipedia page, you can find something > > along these lines: > > y

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:36, Rob Oakes wrote: Hi Abdel, Sorry for the general density. No need to say sorry. I'm an infant amongst men when it comes to most programming things. I think you are doing just good. Abdel.

Re: Goals for 2.1

Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > No, we have a cross-platform program, we need a real cross-platform build > system, as simple as that. And yes, cygwin is just another platform, but it > is not our main Windows platform. i dont have hard opinions whether cmake should be main tool, but it must be prepa

Re: Development of a development model

On 04/05/2011 16:16, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Pavel Sanda > wrote: Andre Poenitz wrote: > Close to the current svn model, but allow people to use branches for > non-trivial feature sets if they like? +1 Then we can j

Re: Package name for Branch 2.0

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:44:06PM +0200, Kornel wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:25:02PM +0200, Kornel wrote: > > > I would like to change the actual name "lyx" to "lyx20" as we have for > > > branch 1.6 "lyx16". It allows parallel install

SVN mirror of git

Dear Developers, I've been following the debate regarding development models with some interest. It sounds as though some people are ready to move to git now. While I'm not thrilled about that (I don't care for git very much), I think it makes a lot of good sense. A move to a distributed model

Re: Package name for Branch 2.0

Am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2011 schrieb Enrico Forestieri: > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:25:02PM +0200, Kornel wrote: > > I would like to change the actual name "lyx" to "lyx20" as we have for > > branch 1.6 "lyx16". It allows parallel installation of lyx(trunk) and > > some branches. > > Do you mean that

  1   2   >