Re: blockers for 2.2.0?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 06:10:18PM -0800, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > what issues others view as critical. Which issues do you view as > > blockers? > > Do we track the issue recently reported by Jerry? > Signalized more general problem to me. We don't have a ticket for it. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: blockers for 2.2.0?
Scott Kostyshak wrote: > what issues others view as critical. Which issues do you view as > blockers? Do we track the issue recently reported by Jerry? Signalized more general problem to me. Pavel
Re: blockers for 2.2.0?
Le 22/02/2016 17:03, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Le 22/02/2016 16:54, Guillaume Munch a écrit : Before Jean-Marc's message, I moved the milestone to 2.2.x because the results of proper testing will not be known in time. But I agree with Jean-Marc that it could be applied right now without being sure that it fixes the bug. (Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with cursor & selection myself.) Here's a direct link to the patch: http://www.lyx.org/trac/attachment/ticket/9917/0001-Reset-anchor-after-having-modified-the-cursor-not-be.patch oops! Seeing the patch again makes me relaize that the logic is wrong. I update it ASAP. Pfff, actually I see now that if I do the resetAnchor before (or after) the clearSelection() call, nothing will happen any way, since clearSelection does a resetAnchor of its own. Therefore this patch is not good even in fixed form. I guess that this part - if (!do_selection) - d->cursor_.resetAnchor(); is correct, but removing this code will not fix anything, the code is useless. Sigh. JMarc
Re: blockers for 2.2.0?
Le 22/02/2016 17:13, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Pfff, actually I see now that if I do the resetAnchor before (or after) the clearSelection() call, nothing will happen any way, since clearSelection does a resetAnchor of its own. Therefore this patch is not good even in fixed form. I guess that this part - if (!do_selection) - d->cursor_.resetAnchor(); is correct, but removing this code will not fix anything, the code is useless. So, to make things clear, I do not have any fix for this bug, but since it is an auto-fixing assertion and not a real crash, it is not a 2.2.0 blocker IMO. JMarc
Re: blockers for 2.2.0?
Le 22/02/2016 16:54, Guillaume Munch a écrit : Before Jean-Marc's message, I moved the milestone to 2.2.x because the results of proper testing will not be known in time. But I agree with Jean-Marc that it could be applied right now without being sure that it fixes the bug. (Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with cursor & selection myself.) Here's a direct link to the patch: http://www.lyx.org/trac/attachment/ticket/9917/0001-Reset-anchor-after-having-modified-the-cursor-not-be.patch oops! Seeing the patch again makes me relaize that the logic is wrong. I update it ASAP. JMarc
Re: blockers for 2.2.0?
Le 22/02/2016 10:16, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Le 21/02/2016 22:04, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : We have 11 trac tickets with a 2.2.0 milestone. Any help with reducing those 11 would be appreciated: http://www.lyx.org/trac/query?status=accepted=reopened=assigned=new=status=2.2.0 A few comments: * regarding #9917, I'd appreciate if some other developers who know about cursor and selection could look at the patch that I posted there and give a +1 on code soundness. Then I would propose to apply it. At worst it would not fix the bug, I think. Before Jean-Marc's message, I moved the milestone to 2.2.x because the results of proper testing will not be known in time. But I agree with Jean-Marc that it could be applied right now without being sure that it fixes the bug. (Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with cursor & selection myself.) Here's a direct link to the patch: http://www.lyx.org/trac/attachment/ticket/9917/0001-Reset-anchor-after-having-modified-the-cursor-not-be.patch I am not sure that #9968, #9979, #9869 and #9633 are 2.2.0 blockers per se, since they exist in 2.1.x too. There is now a patch for #9869.
Re: blockers for 2.2.0?
Le 21/02/2016 22:04, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : We have 11 trac tickets with a 2.2.0 milestone. Any help with reducing those 11 would be appreciated: http://www.lyx.org/trac/query?status=accepted=reopened=assigned=new=status=2.2.0 A few comments: * regarding #9917, I'd appreciate if some other developers who know about cursor and selection could look at the patch that I posted there and give a +1 on code soundness. Then I would propose to apply it. At worst it would not fix the bug, I think. * #9962 is pretty bad, but I am waiting on more clues from somebody who experiences it. It looks like it is possible to create a file the hangs LyX every time. * #9971 is only aesthetic, but I'd like to fix it. I am waiting for more information from OP. I am not sure that #9968, #9979, #9869 and #9633 are 2.2.0 blockers per se, since they exist in 2.1.x too. They may matter if they are regressions wrt 2.0. Finally for #9948 (date inset), one needs to implement proper date inset, maybe as insetinfo. This should cover the old external material (date at time of compilation), Insert>Date (date at time of insertion) and maybe \today. This seems a bit too much for a rushed feature nobody is working on. To workaround bug #4398, would it be possible to add a % at the end of the latex output, like that Format LaTeX Product "$$Contents(\"$$Tempname\")%" JMarc
blockers for 2.2.0?
Dear all, We still want to leave beta2 out there for some time to get more feedback before moving to an RC, but I would like to get a feeling for what issues others view as critical. Which issues do you view as blockers? We have 11 trac tickets with a 2.2.0 milestone. Any help with reducing those 11 would be appreciated: http://www.lyx.org/trac/query?status=accepted=reopened=assigned=new=status=2.2.0 Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature
