Re: [ALPHA Question] Change Toggling Bug

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:41:32AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > On 11/06/2015 04:12 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >Le 05/11/2015 22:44, Richard Heck a écrit : > >>OK, try this one. > > > >Only 12 minutes, you're a fast learner :) The patch looks perfect to me. > > The code is the

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Le 06/11/2015 21:42, Georg Baum a écrit : I think there is general consensus about \justification and \output_changes, so if this is OK with Scott you could move these to preferences, but for \track_changes I do not see a consensus, so this setting should not be changed so short before a

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

> Democracy is not the point IMHO: The point is not to further delay the > release. Implementing a small and safe file format change where everybody > agrees that it is useful does not produce a significant delay. Discussing a > controversal change where no easy solution is in sight has the

Re: Two Shortcut Changes

Op 5 nov. 2015 21:48 schreef "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" : > > Le 05/11/15 21:34, Richard Heck a écrit : > >>> I've used PSTricks extensively with LyX. Having a shortcut to ps >>> output has been very convenient. >> >> >> This seems like a case where you should set the default

Re: screen indenting after frames

On 06 Nov 2015, at 08:34, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Donnerstag 05 November 2015, 18:57:52 schrieb Edwin Leuven: >> i agree >> >> may i suggest that you push this change to master? > > I've pushed something similar. great > Might be something to consider for branch. yes

Re: [patch] Finding the generated latex file

Le 06/11/2015 04:16, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : I also agree that it's better to replace the alert with a message on stderr. I noticed that there are already similar messages on the terminal when files cannot be removed. Attached is a patch. Shall I commit it? Although I personally like this

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Le 06/11/2015 05:37, Pavel Sanda a écrit : Guillaume Munch wrote: express any intention. Your description gives the impression that if your collaborator starts writing and they do not see that the changes are not being tracked, then they will not know or care about enabling change tracking, as

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Le 06/11/2015 10:06, Stephan Witt a écrit : In this sense there is no need to reduce the likely-hood of merge conflicts with the state of change tracking. It's not a setting to toggle often, IMHO. Well, since some people do change it often (if only to piss off their co-author :), we could try

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 06/11/2015 10:06, Stephan Witt a écrit : >> >> In this sense there is no need to reduce the likely-hood of merge >> conflicts >> with the state of change tracking. It's not a setting to toggle often, >> IMHO. >

Re: [ALPHA] Change Toggling Bug

Le 06/11/2015 05:42, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : The fact that the setting was set in BufferView, the fact that it didn't call markDirty or recordUndo, all tell me that this setting was not supposed to be a document property. Historically, lots of thing that required only a buffer and no

Re: RFC: better submenu for tables

Le 04/11/2015 17:19, Richard Heck a écrit : - everything is removed for which we also have toolbar button. (If users disabled the automatic show of the table toolbar they apparently don't use tables that much and the table settings dialog is sufficient) This is not how contextual menus are

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Am 06.11.2015 um 09:52 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > Le 06/11/2015 05:37, Pavel Sanda a écrit : >> Guillaume Munch wrote: >>> express any intention. Your description gives the impression that if >>> your collaborator starts writing and they do not see that the changes >>>

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Le 06/11/2015 02:31, Guillaume Munch a écrit : Besides the lack of intention conveyed, I already mentioned the principle of least surprise: it is not clear for a new user that this is a purpose of the button. So if what is currently implemented is really what you have in mind, then it is a very

Re: [ALPHA] Change Toggling Bug

Le 05/11/2015 22:44, Richard Heck a écrit : OK, try this one. Only 12 minutes, you're a fast learner :) The patch looks perfect to me. One advantage of moving stuff to the Buffer class is that it is available for command-line changes (although toggling by command line is less useful than

Re: [patch] proof of concept for bug 9744: allow parallel configuration of TeX and non-TeX fonts

Dear Georg, dear all, On 2015-11-05, Georg Baum wrote: > I started to work on bug 9744 in order tor get better test results, as > discussed. Attached is a proof of concept for the automatic font selection. Thanks for your work and thanks for the patch. For the Document>Settings>Fonts GUI, I

Re: [LyX/master] Fix algorithm that computes horizontal scroll offset

Le 04/11/2015 00:12, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : Starting with this commit, if I open e.g. the Introduction manual and I triple click on the first line of the first paragraph (starting with "LyX is a document preparation system...", the line is selected and the text jumps a little to the left. If

Re: screen indenting after frames

Le 06/11/2015 07:34, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit : Am Donnerstag 05 November 2015, 18:57:52 schrieb Edwin Leuven: i agree may i suggest that you push this change to master? I've pushed something similar. Might be something to consider for branch. Jürgen Thank you!

[ALPHA Question] Change Toggling Bug

On 11/06/2015 04:12 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 05/11/2015 22:44, Richard Heck a écrit : OK, try this one. Only 12 minutes, you're a fast learner :) The patch looks perfect to me. The code is the documentation, in this case. One advantage of moving stuff to the Buffer class is that

Re: screen indenting after frames

On 11/06/2015 02:34 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Am Donnerstag 05 November 2015, 18:57:52 schrieb Edwin Leuven: i agree may i suggest that you push this change to master? I've pushed something similar. Might be something to consider for branch. Sure. Richard

Re: new patch for Xe/LuaTeX with TeX-fonts

Am Donnerstag, 5. November 2015 um 20:12:53, schrieb Guenter Milde ... >pass "LaTeXFeatures & features" as argument >and test for "features.runparams().flavor == OutputParams::XETEX" >(cf. BufferParams::writeEncodingPreamble(). > >Alternatively, pass and

Re: [patch] proof of concept for bug 9744: allow parallel configuration of TeX and non-TeX fonts

Am Donnerstag, 5. November 2015 um 21:04:03, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 09:12:56PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote: > > > The test problem could easily be solved in the test machinery instead: When > > exporting via XeTeX or LuaTeX, switch to non-TeX fonts,

Re: screen indenting after frames

2015-11-06 17:43 GMT+01:00 Richard Heck: > On 11/06/2015 02:34 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > >> Am Donnerstag 05 November 2015, 18:57:52 schrieb Edwin Leuven: >> >>> i agree >>> >>> may i suggest that you push this change to master? >>> >> I've pushed something similar. >> >> Might be something

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Le 06/11/2015 07:01, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : Op 6 nov. 2015 05:44 schreef "Pavel Sanda" >: > > Guillaume Munch wrote: > > That "CT lock" feature, instead of imposing such a strict constraint > > (that could always be circumvented one way or the

Re: new patch for Xe/LuaTeX with TeX-fonts

On 2015-11-06, Kornel Benko wrote: > [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 7bit --] > Am Donnerstag, 5. November 2015 um 20:12:53, schrieb Guenter Milde > > ... >>pass "LaTeXFeatures & features" as argument >>and test for "features.runparams().flavor ==

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Le 06/11/2015 04:37, Pavel Sanda a écrit : Guillaume Munch wrote: express any intention. Your description gives the impression that if your collaborator starts writing and they do not see that the changes are not being tracked, then they will not know or care about enabling change tracking, as

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Le 06/11/2015 09:06, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Le 06/11/2015 02:31, Guillaume Munch a écrit : Besides the lack of intention conveyed, I already mentioned the principle of least surprise: it is not clear for a new user that this is a purpose of the button. So if what is currently

Re: new patch for Xe/LuaTeX with TeX-fonts

On 2015-11-06, Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2015-11-06, Kornel Benko wrote: >> [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 7bit --] >> Am Donnerstag, 5. November 2015 um 20:12:53, schrieb Guenter Milde >> >> ... >>>pass "LaTeXFeatures & features" as argument >>>and test for

Re: [LyX/master] Fix algorithm that computes horizontal scroll offset

Am 02.11.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > commit 1f0d210ab56057f35960a3b86f5fa1e03ef8ecd0 > Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes > Date: Tue Oct 27 16:11:01 2015 +0100 > >Fix algorithm that computes horizontal scroll offset > >Rewrite the

Re: [LyX/master] Fix algorithm that computes horizontal scroll offset

Le 06/11/2015 12:10, Stephan Witt a écrit : MARGIN is now the right margin of the row plus 2em. That's why the row scrolls to left too early, IMHO. It starts scrolling before reaching the margin. Is this intended? Obviously I did something wrong and did not test enough. I am on it right now.

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 06/11/2015 09:06, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : >> Le 06/11/2015 02:31, Guillaume Munch a écrit : >> >> In terms of least surprise, I would add that both msword 2007 and >> libreoffice 5 store the setting in the document and consider the >> document as modified when

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 05/11/2015 20:25, Georg Baum a écrit : >> Guillaume Munch wrote: >> >>> In addition, what appears even more special to me is the number of times >>> when it produces the effects that you mention: the only times when a >>> per-user, per-document preference would not

Re: [patch] proof of concept for bug 9744: allow parallel configuration of TeX and non-TeX fonts

Guenter Milde wrote: > Dear Georg, dear all, > > On 2015-11-05, Georg Baum wrote: > >> I started to work on bug 9744 in order tor get better test results, as >> discussed. Attached is a proof of concept for the automatic font >> selection. > > Thanks for your work and thanks for the patch. >

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > What actually makes sense is to have a document setting like > "under_version_control". When the user opens such a document (for the > first time?) we turn on change tracking. What has version control to do with change tracking? Georg

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Le 06/11/2015 21:28, Georg Baum a écrit : Guillaume Munch wrote: Le 06/11/2015 09:06, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Le 06/11/2015 02:31, Guillaume Munch a écrit : In terms of least surprise, I would add that both msword 2007 and libreoffice 5 store the setting in the document and consider

Re: #9841: Preferences specific to the user and not to the file should not be recorded in the file

Le 06/11/2015 21:46, Guillaume Munch a écrit : Le 06/11/2015 21:28, Georg Baum a écrit : Guillaume Munch wrote: Le 06/11/2015 09:06, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Le 06/11/2015 02:31, Guillaume Munch a écrit : In terms of least surprise, I would add that both msword 2007 and libreoffice 5