Re: [LyX/2.3-staging] Make inset-select-all select all cells only in tables

Le 18/04/2016 14:59, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : --- a/src/insets/Inset.h +++ b/src/insets/Inset.h @@ -347,6 +347,8 @@ public: virtual bool clickable(BufferView const &, int, int) const { return false; } /// Move one cell backwards virtual bool

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Peter Kümmel wrote: > I also think these branches are overkill. +1 Pavel

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/18/2016 05:07 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > > > > We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3 > > > > Yes, that was also my proposal. > > However, people appear to be afraid to not have the 2.2.0 tag in master. > > But note that if the 2.2-branch in this

Re: [RFC] Staging Branches and Trac

On 04/18/2016 05:19 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > Op 16 apr. 2016 21:50 schreef "Richard Heck" >: > > > > > > As Scott pointed out, my previous suggestions for how fixes committed to > > the staging branches should be handled in trac was silly. We

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/18/2016 05:02 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: > Am 18. April 2016 22:56:06 MESZ, schrieb Richard Heck : >> On 04/18/2016 04:32 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: >>> Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" >> : I also think these branches are overkill.

Re: [RFC] Staging Branches and Trac

Op 16 apr. 2016 21:50 schreef "Richard Heck" : > > > As Scott pointed out, my previous suggestions for how fixes committed to > the staging branches should be handled in trac was silly. We can't reuse > "fixedinmaster" for 2.3-staging. I'm also not sure that we want to > introduce

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

> > We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3 > Yes, that was also my proposal. However, people appear to be afraid to not have the 2.2.0 tag in master. But note that if the 2.2-branch in this scenario is merged back into master after the release, it is equivalent

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 22:56:06 MESZ, schrieb Richard Heck : >On 04/18/2016 04:32 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" >: >>> I also think these branches are overkill. >>> >>> I would only use master and 2.2. No 2.3, it

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/18/2016 04:32 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: > Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" : >> I also think these branches are overkill. >> >> I would only use master and 2.2. No 2.3, it is so far away that it could be >> in master. >> >> 2.2 should be always

Re: [LyX/2.3-staging] Change mouse cursor on tabular selection zones

On 04/18/2016 09:06 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 18/04/2016 14:56, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : >> commit 5b7be5eb61d68466f808099ea3524cb2966333f9 >> Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes >> Date: Tue Feb 2 17:07:29 2016 +0100 >> >> Change mouse cursor on tabular

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" : >Am 18. April 2016 21:28:04 MESZ, schrieb Georg Baum >: >>Richard Heck wrote: >> >>> We now have three staging branches. These are: >>> >>> 2.3-staging >>> 2.2.1-staging >>>

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" : >Am 18. April 2016 21:28:04 MESZ, schrieb Georg Baum >: >>Richard Heck wrote: >> >>> We now have three staging branches. These are: >>> >>> 2.3-staging >>> 2.2.1-staging >>>

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 21:28:04 MESZ, schrieb Georg Baum : >Richard Heck wrote: > >> We now have three staging branches. These are: >> >> 2.3-staging >> 2.2.1-staging >> 2.2.2-staging > >That makes 5 active branches in total (please correct me if I

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> B) Branch 2.2.x from master and continue "unstable" development on >> master. >> >> To me it does not feel right that the commits in-between 2.2.0rc1 and >> 2.2.0 final would not *necessarily* be in

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:08:50PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > >> PS: Since RC is "Release candidate" we should IMHO only allow really >> critical bug fixes between RC1 and 2.2.0 final. In particular I think we >> should not do a RC2. > > I think I mostly agree, although

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Richard Heck wrote: > We now have three staging branches. These are: > > 2.3-staging > 2.2.1-staging > 2.2.2-staging That makes 5 active branches in total (please correct me if I misunderstood something): 2.1.x => will become 2.1.5 master => will become 2.2.0

Re: Lyx-rc1 feedback

Le 17/04/2016 22:55, mn a écrit : 1. LyX is supposed to be faster now. After a while of having the app open, from 2 hours to some days, editing slows down to a crawl. After restarting LyX speed is back to normal (which is still too slow, btw) so it’s not my documents. (And I mean really glacial,

Re: [RFC] Staging Branches and Trac

On 04/18/2016 12:21 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 18/04/2016 18:08, Richard Heck a écrit : >> On 04/18/2016 06:13 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >>> Le 16/04/2016 21:49, Richard Heck a écrit : As Scott pointed out, my previous suggestions for how fixes committed to the

Re: [RFC] Staging Branches and Trac

Le 18/04/2016 18:08, Richard Heck a écrit : On 04/18/2016 06:13 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 16/04/2016 21:49, Richard Heck a écrit : As Scott pointed out, my previous suggestions for how fixes committed to the staging branches should be handled in trac was silly. We can't reuse

Re: Is "make distcheck" failure a blocker?

Le 18/04/2016 18:09, Richard Heck a écrit : On 04/18/2016 08:12 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 16/04/2016 06:19, Stephan Witt a écrit : <0001-Make-monolithic-build-code-portable-to-Mac-OS.patch> Sorry for the late response: yes, it works here on my Mac. I put it in 2.3-staging.

Re: Is "make distcheck" failure a blocker?

On 04/18/2016 08:12 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 16/04/2016 06:19, Stephan Witt a écrit : >>> <0001-Make-monolithic-build-code-portable-to-Mac-OS.patch> >> >> Sorry for the late response: yes, it works here on my Mac. > > I put it in 2.3-staging. > > Richard, is it OK for 2.2.2? Yes. rh

Re: [RFC] Staging Branches and Trac

On 04/18/2016 06:13 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 16/04/2016 21:49, Richard Heck a écrit : >> >> As Scott pointed out, my previous suggestions for how fixes committed to >> the staging branches should be handled in trac was silly. We can't reuse >> "fixedinmaster" for 2.3-staging. I'm also

Re: CRASH 2.2.0dev with XeLaTeX and Utopia font

Den 15. april 2016 19:10, skrev PhilipPirrip: Don't ask me how I find these... I'm at 744f6e3cd802 now, compiled with Qt 5.6.0 on Linux Fedora 24. I get the same behavior with an older binary compiled with Qt 4.8.7. Before filing a bug report, I need someone to confirm: Start LyX 2.2 New

Re: Is "make distcheck" failure a blocker?

Le 16/04/2016 06:19, Stephan Witt a écrit : <0001-Make-monolithic-build-code-portable-to-Mac-OS.patch> Sorry for the late response: yes, it works here on my Mac. I put it in 2.3-staging. Richard, is it OK for 2.2.2? JMarc

Re: [PATCH] move doc changelogs out of attic

Le 16/04/2016 14:37, Richard Heck a écrit : Scott, I am not sure when we want to apply this. I prefer not for 2.2.0. It can now go to 2.3-staging. Is this something we want in 2.2.x? If so, it's fine to go to 2.2.1-staging, as it doesn't actually affect anything in the code. I did both.

Re: [RFC] Staging Branches and Trac

Le 16/04/2016 21:49, Richard Heck a écrit : As Scott pointed out, my previous suggestions for how fixes committed to the staging branches should be handled in trac was silly. We can't reuse "fixedinmaster" for 2.3-staging. I'm also not sure that we want to introduce a new status

Re: 2.2.0rc1 tar balls are available

Le 15/04/2016 21:56, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 09:48:38PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 15/04/16 21:45, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 04:19:20PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 13/04/2016 21:27, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : It is

Re: [PATCH] compilation fix for libc++ in C++11 mode

Le 17/04/2016 01:03, Guillaume Munch a écrit : Le 10/01/2016 21:38, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Le 10/01/16 22:33, Guillaume Munch a écrit : I imagine that Toc and other classes are being forward-declared in some headers probably for the same speed reason. Toc.h is there to provide an