Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. It just turned out that we have a severe cursor misalignment problem with some classes (beamer, hollywood, foils, slides, and others), see bug 2308. http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2308 This is a major usability problem IMHO and should be fixed for 1.4.0, if possible. Jürgen
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
Georg == Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Georg Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 13:30 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes: I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem very important for a release. Georg I believe that this is a big misunderstanding: People do this Georg and that because it is unclear when a release will happen and Georg what should be contained. My impression is that 1.4.0 is Georg mentally released and developers are developing for 1.4.1 Georg (and later) really. Agreed. I for one would like to see 1.4.0 released, so that we can see what the feedback is. I suspect we will have more important issues than those people have been fighting about. JMarc
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
Juergen == Juergen Spitzmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Juergen Martin Vermeer wrote: If you all are confident in the 2212 fix, it can go in. I am confident, but it's near-useless without also multi-par change tracking (which would make this a useable feature). Cosmetic, as well. So... no, not now. Juergen Do you mean because change tracking is not useable in general Juergen without multi-par tracking? I wonder why people ever used the Juergen ct-patch for 1.3. Even if it's not perfect, 1.4's change Juergen tracking is way better than that. Juergen I opt to put 2212 in. Agreed. JMarc
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Georg Baum wrote: Have anyone done any testing on 2243 at all? I have it in my tree, it works for me, but I have an old dvipng (version 1.5) that works also without the patch. At least this indicates that there are no regressions. Bennett has tested it with a recent dvipng version, which failed withour the patch, and confirmed that it works. So Lars, can it go in? Jürgen
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Juergen Spitzmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Georg Baum wrote: | Have anyone done any testing on 2243 at all? | | I have it in my tree, it works for me, but I have an old dvipng (version | 1.5) that works also without the patch. At least this indicates that | there are no regressions. | | Bennett has tested it with a recent dvipng version, which failed withour the | patch, and confirmed that it works. | | So Lars, can it go in? yes. -- Lgb
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in > 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. It just turned out that we have a severe cursor misalignment problem with some classes (beamer, hollywood, foils, slides, and others), see bug 2308. http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2308 This is a major usability problem IMHO and should be fixed for 1.4.0, if possible. Jürgen
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Georg> Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 13:30 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes: >> I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: >> I continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people >> deem very important for a release. Georg> I believe that this is a big misunderstanding: People do this Georg> and that because it is unclear when a release will happen and Georg> what should be contained. My impression is that 1.4.0 is Georg> "mentally released" and developers are developing for 1.4.1 Georg> (and later) really. Agreed. I for one would like to see 1.4.0 released, so that we can see what the feedback is. I suspect we will have more important issues than those people have been fighting about. JMarc
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Juergen> Martin Vermeer wrote: >> > If you all are confident in the 2212 fix, it can go in. >> >> I am confident, but it's near-useless without also multi-par change >> tracking (which would make this a useable feature). Cosmetic, as >> well. So... no, not now. Juergen> Do you mean because change tracking is not useable in general Juergen> without multi-par tracking? I wonder why people ever used the Juergen> ct-patch for 1.3. Even if it's not perfect, 1.4's change Juergen> tracking is way better than that. Juergen> I opt to put 2212 in. Agreed. JMarc
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Georg Baum wrote: > > Have anyone done any testing on 2243 at all? > > I have it in my tree, it works for me, but I have an old dvipng (version > 1.5) that works also without the patch. At least this indicates that > there are no regressions. Bennett has tested it with a recent dvipng version, which failed withour the patch, and confirmed that it works. So Lars, can it go in? Jürgen
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Georg Baum wrote: | > > Have anyone done any testing on 2243 at all? | > | > I have it in my tree, it works for me, but I have an old dvipng (version | > 1.5) that works also without the patch. At least this indicates that | > there are no regressions. | | Bennett has tested it with a recent dvipng version, which failed withour the | patch, and confirmed that it works. | | So Lars, can it go in? yes. -- Lgb
Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | At the moment it seems that everyone, without exception, is frustrated by the | current deadlock. I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem very important for a release. So perhaps going the active route is the approach. Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. -- Lgb
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | At the moment it seems that everyone, without exception, is frustrated | by the current deadlock. I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem very important for a release. Given that it's a dribble, why not branch for release now and open head for real development again? -- Angus
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 13:30 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes: I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem very important for a release. I believe that this is a big misunderstanding: People do this and that because it is unclear when a release will happen and what should be contained. My impression is that 1.4.0 is mentally released and developers are developing for 1.4.1 (and later) really. So perhaps going the active route is the approach. Yes. Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. John targetted some bugs to 1.4.0 recently. Of these, I would like to see the following in 1.4.0: 2251 (well understood and tested) 1161 (because this is a UI change that is best done in a major release) Given the recent interest in lyx-users we should also think about 2238. The most important problem of this bug is that it can lead to dataloss, even without a single error message on the console. The patch I created is low risk, because it a) restores what we have in 1.3, b) works well for me, and c) the interface to LyX is restricted to the well known mechanism in math_factory.C and math_parser.C, so if it has still problems they will only occur for documents that contain \xymatrix. It is certainly better to risk some unknown problems with \xymatrix than knowing that LyX will throw away parts of \xymatrix for sure. There are of course other problems, but IMHO they are not worth it to delay a release and/or not well enough understood (e.g. bug 2218) Finally I think that we should state in the announcement that 1.4.0, although usable in general, still has some rough edges (e.g. speed, the spell checker problem 2218). And the change tracking should be advertised as experimental. Georg
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 16:01 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes: Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | 2251 (well understood and tested) But only cosmetic. I do not understand why it cannot wait. Sure it is not so important, but I do not understand why it should wait. What do you expect to happen if we don't put it in 1.4.0? I believe it will then go in 1.4.1 exactly as it is now. Have anyone done any testing on 2243 at all? I have it in my tree, it works for me, but I have an old dvipng (version 1.5) that works also without the patch. At least this indicates that there are no regressions. | Given the recent interest in lyx-users we should also think about 2238. Have anyone tested this patch? I have, but AFAIK nobody else. Georg
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 04:01:14PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in | 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. | | John targetted some bugs to 1.4.0 recently. Of these, I would like to see | the following in 1.4.0: | | 2251 (well understood and tested) But only cosmetic. I do not understand why it cannot wait. Agreed. ... If you all are confident in the 2212 fix, it can go in. I am confident, but it's near-useless without also multi-par change tracking (which would make this a useable feature). Cosmetic, as well. So... no, not now. - Martin pgpkh6njOWsvS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. Due to the fact that everybody has a different opinion on what must be included in 1.4.0, I would like to propose a different approach: 1. Let's go through the list of available patches 2. Ask people to test these patches (some of them have been tested already) 2. Let's decide which patches have been tested throughly and are trustworthy 3. Commit those patches without further discussion! 4. Let's see what we have achieved: 4.1 Everybody happy? = release candiate 1.4.0 4.2. Still some doubts? = goto 1 The important point is that we should NOT discuss on the IMPORTANCE of a patch. We are wasting energy this way. Let's discuss the patches themselves. Is this a suitable way to cut the Gordian knot? I guess the discussion would be a lot less emotional. Michael
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
Michael Gerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | The important point is that we should NOT discuss on the IMPORTANCE of | a patch. We are wasting energy this way. Let's discuss the patches | themselves. The patches themselves (if they are correct) are not important, it _is_ what they fix and and the IMPORTANCE of the problem that matters. | Is this a suitable way to cut the Gordian knot? As you see we are comming from completely opposite ends, so I guess not. -- Lgb
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
Michael Gerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | | Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in | 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. | | All the change tracking stuff should go in. It can't get worse. Which part of the CT feature is not working? Is it usable at all? Does it kill your documents? Reboot your box? It can get a lot worse... -- Lgb
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 08:53:34PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Michael Gerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | | Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in | 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. | | All the change tracking stuff should go in. It can't get worse. Which part of the CT feature is not working? Michael means the multi-paragraph part. Is it usable at all? For some people apparently it is, which I find a bit surprising. Does it kill your documents? Reboot your box? It can get a lot worse... Yes, a bad patch can break a lot more than just what it tries to fix. Same for the fix to skip first change (2212 IIRC). On the surface it is a cosmetic patch, but it makes some deep changes. So forget it at this point. IMHO of course. BTW what about creating a feature branch for CT directly under the branches/ root? Makes playing around a little easier for people. - Martin pgpcunbf8B3Kc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | At the moment it seems that everyone, without exception, is frustrated by the | current deadlock. I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem very important for a release. So perhaps going the active route is the approach. Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. -- Lgb
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | At the moment it seems that everyone, without exception, is frustrated > | by the current deadlock. > > I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I > continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem > very important for a release. Given that it's a dribble, why not branch for release now and open head for real development again? -- Angus
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 13:30 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes: > I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I > continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem > very important for a release. I believe that this is a big misunderstanding: People do this and that because it is unclear when a release will happen and what should be contained. My impression is that 1.4.0 is "mentally released" and developers are developing for 1.4.1 (and later) really. > So perhaps going the active route is the approach. Yes. > Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in > 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. John targetted some bugs to 1.4.0 recently. Of these, I would like to see the following in 1.4.0: 2251 (well understood and tested) 1161 (because this is a UI change that is best done in a major release) Given the recent interest in lyx-users we should also think about 2238. The most important problem of this bug is that it can lead to dataloss, even without a single error message on the console. The patch I created is low risk, because it a) restores what we have in 1.3, b) works well for me, and c) the interface to LyX is restricted to the well known mechanism in math_factory.C and math_parser.C, so if it has still problems they will only occur for documents that contain \xymatrix. It is certainly better to risk some unknown problems with \xymatrix than knowing that LyX will throw away parts of \xymatrix for sure. There are of course other problems, but IMHO they are not worth it to delay a release and/or not well enough understood (e.g. bug 2218) Finally I think that we should state in the announcement that 1.4.0, although usable in general, still has some rough edges (e.g. speed, the spell checker problem 2218). And the change tracking should be advertised as experimental. Georg
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 16:01 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes: > Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | 2251 (well understood and tested) > > But only cosmetic. I do not understand why it cannot wait. Sure it is not so important, but I do not understand why it should wait. What do you expect to happen if we don't put it in 1.4.0? I believe it will then go in 1.4.1 exactly as it is now. > Have anyone done any testing on 2243 at all? I have it in my tree, it works for me, but I have an old dvipng (version 1.5) that works also without the patch. At least this indicates that there are no regressions. > | Given the recent interest in lyx-users we should also think about 2238. > > Have anyone tested this patch? I have, but AFAIK nobody else. Georg
Re: Why not 1..40 right away? (was: [PATCH] Speedup paragraph insertion/removal (a.k.a ParagraphList Rewrite))
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 04:01:14PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | > Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in > | > 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. > | > | John targetted some bugs to 1.4.0 recently. Of these, I would like to see > | the following in 1.4.0: > | > | 2251 (well understood and tested) > > But only cosmetic. I do not understand why it cannot wait. Agreed. ... > If you all are confident in the 2212 fix, it can go in. I am confident, but it's near-useless without also multi-par change tracking (which would make this a useable feature). Cosmetic, as well. So... no, not now. - Martin pgpkh6njOWsvS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. Due to the fact that everybody has a different opinion on what must be included in 1.4.0, I would like to propose a different approach: 1. Let's go through the list of available patches 2. Ask people to test these patches (some of them have been tested already) 2. Let's decide which patches have been tested throughly and are trustworthy 3. Commit those patches without further discussion! 4. Let's see what we have achieved: 4.1 Everybody happy? => release candiate 1.4.0 4.2. Still some doubts? => goto 1 The important point is that we should NOT discuss on the IMPORTANCE of a patch. We are wasting energy this way. Let's discuss the patches themselves. Is this a suitable way to cut the Gordian knot? I guess the discussion would be a lot less emotional. Michael
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | The important point is that we should NOT discuss on the IMPORTANCE of | a patch. We are wasting energy this way. Let's discuss the patches | themselves. The patches themselves (if they are correct) are not important, it _is_ what they fix and and the IMPORTANCE of the problem that matters. | Is this a suitable way to cut the Gordian knot? As you see we are comming from completely opposite ends, so I guess not. -- Lgb
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | | >Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in | >1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. | > | All the change tracking stuff should go in. It can't get worse. Which part of the CT feature is not working? Is it usable at all? Does it kill your documents? Reboot your box? It can get a lot worse... -- Lgb
Re: Why not 1..40 right away?
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 08:53:34PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | > | >Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in > | >1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear. > | > > | All the change tracking stuff should go in. It can't get worse. > > Which part of the CT feature is not working? Michael means the multi-paragraph part. > Is it usable at all? For some people apparently it is, which I find a bit surprising. > Does it kill your documents? > Reboot your box? > > It can get a lot worse... Yes, a bad patch can break a lot more than just what it tries to fix. Same for the fix to "skip first change" (2212 IIRC). On the surface it is a cosmetic patch, but it makes some deep changes. So forget it at this point. IMHO of course. BTW what about creating a feature branch for CT directly under the branches/ root? Makes playing around a little easier for people. - Martin pgpcunbf8B3Kc.pgp Description: PGP signature
