El Jueves, 5 de Julio de 2007 15:40, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> I think this would be the best. It gives maximum flexibility if the
> stylesheets we use are local to our repos. This also solves the issue
> of people having different versions of the stylesheets installed. So
> long as someone (Manue
El Miércoles, 4 de Julio de 2007 22:59, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
> Do you have any insight into why there will be no 1.72.1 release?
>
Apart the comments in the commits and some developer's post in docbook-apps
saying that 1.73.0 will be released soon. I think that the main reason that
they have
On 7/4/07, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Miércoles, 4 de Julio de 2007 22:59, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
> > Manuel,
> > I know that you have been working hard on the updates, but options 2
> > and 3 seem to be even more work. On top of that, I suspect we will want
> > to go to the n
El Miércoles, 4 de Julio de 2007 23:49, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> Well, I took a look at the Relax-NG stuff a while back and hit a bug in
> libxml2 (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413248). That pretty
> much stops any work on migrating the stylesheets to be Relax-NG friendly.
Actual
On Wednesday 04 July 2007 22:37:01 M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Miércoles, 4 de Julio de 2007 23:29, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> > I also think this is the way we should proceed. I'm not sure that we
> > necessarily need to remove files that we don't require for a build of any
> > of our books - in fa
El Miércoles, 4 de Julio de 2007 23:29, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> I also think this is the way we should proceed. I'm not sure that we
> necessarily need to remove files that we don't require for a build of any
> of our books - in fact, keeping them around would probably make diffs
> between up
El Miércoles, 4 de Julio de 2007 22:59, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
> Manuel,
> I know that you have been working hard on the updates, but options 2
> and 3 seem to be even more work. On top of that, I suspect we will want
> to go to the next stable release when it is available, so a lot of the
> wor
On Wednesday 04 July 2007 21:34:05 M.Canales.es wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you know, the new XSL stylesheets are ready for production time waiting
> the release of stable DocBook-XSL-1.72.1.
>
> The bad news it that there will be no DocBook-XSL-1.72.1 release
That's obviously not the news any of us were
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/04/07 15:59 CST:
> My initial reaction is that option 1 is best for the overall project.
I typed a long essay in reply to Manuel's question agreeing with
Bruce. However, just as I was finishing it, I thought "well, since
Manuel is the one doing all the work, wh
M.Canales.es wrote these words on 07/04/07 15:34 CST:
> 1. - Wait up to the next *.1 release to start using the new code. That could
> meant to wait at least other 3-4 months :-/
>
> 2.- To create our own LFS-XSL-1.0 package based on current new-xsl branch
> code and use it as a temporally so
M.Canales.es wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you know, the new XSL stylesheets are ready for production time waiting
> the
> release of stable DocBook-XSL-1.72.1.
>
> The bad news it that there will be no DocBook-XSL-1.72.1 release, but a new
> beta DocBook-XSL-1.73.0 that may contains several bugs due ve
11 matches
Mail list logo