Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/10/2011 08:21 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: On 10.05.2011 19:32, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/05/11 19:29, Peter Kümmel a écrit : The idea was not to pollute the src dirs because much more than CMakeLists.txt is needed. But I think we could move the CMakeLists.txt into the source dirs and

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 01:54 PM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: src/boost/ src/intl/ Side notes: 1: we should really get rid of boost source. 2: we should really get rid of boost using code 3: should we get rid of intl source code? Abdel.

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 02:08 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 01:54:07PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: This way we would have one directory per program or library. Sorry, but I really don't see the need for a reorganization that will destabilize things and will cause people

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 02:24 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:14:10PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 05/11/2011 02:08 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 01:54:07PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: This way we would have one directory per program or library

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 02:41 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: src/lyx/ : basically one C++ file with main() using the other libraries below or not src/boost/ src/intl/ src/core/ : everything that is now in src/. Some of that may go in new src/export/ and src/import/ directories

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 02:50 PM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 05/11/2011 02:41 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: src/lyx/ : basically one C++ file with main() using the other libraries below or not src/boost/ src/intl/ src/core/ : everything that is now in src/. Some of that may go

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 03:04 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Hum even svn is able to track renames... Just try svn log trunk/CMakeLists.txt if you don't believe me... i never tried this with svn, it is that -p which makes me so happy and actually one of my most popular git commands

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/10/2011 08:21 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: On 10.05.2011 19:32, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/05/11 19:29, Peter Kümmel a écrit : The idea was not to pollute the src dirs because much more than CMakeLists.txt is needed. But I think we could move the CMakeLists.txt into the source dirs and

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 01:54 PM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: src/boost/ src/intl/ Side notes: 1: we should really get rid of boost source. 2: we should really get rid of boost using code 3: should we get rid of intl source code? Abdel.

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 02:08 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 01:54:07PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: This way we would have one directory per program or library. Sorry, but I really don't see the need for a reorganization that will destabilize things and will cause people

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 02:24 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 02:14:10PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 05/11/2011 02:08 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 01:54:07PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: This way we would have one directory per program or library

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 02:41 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: src/lyx/ : basically one C++ file with main() using the other libraries below or not src/boost/ src/intl/ src/core/ : everything that is now in src/. Some of that may go in new src/export/ and src/import/ directories

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 02:50 PM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 05/11/2011 02:41 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: src/lyx/ : basically one C++ file with main() using the other libraries below or not src/boost/ src/intl/ src/core/ : everything that is now in src/. Some of that may go

Re: Directory cleanup

On 05/11/2011 03:04 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Hum even svn is able to track renames... Just try "svn log trunk/CMakeLists.txt" if you don't believe me... i never tried this with svn, it is that "-p" which makes me so happy and actually one of my most

Re: r38678 - in lyx-devel/trunk: . development/cmake

On 05/09/2011 11:54 PM, kor...@lyx.org wrote: Author: kornel Date: Mon May 9 23:54:31 2011 New Revision: 38678 URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/38678 Log: Moved development/cmake/CMakeLists.txt into top level Why don't you put also all CMakeLists.txtin src/, frontends/ etc? Abdel.

Re: merging status of the Windows installer for LyX 2.0

On 05/09/2011 08:03 PM, Joost Verburg wrote: 1. the installer doesn't recognize if Ghostscript is already installed 2. the installer doesn't recognize if Python is already installed 3. the installer doesn't recognize if Imagemagick is already installed For computers where these are installed,

Re: Cloning Buffers with Parents

On 05/10/2011 11:15 AM, Guenter Milde wrote: On 2011-05-09, Richard Heck wrote: Discussion in the Math Macros in Child Documents thread has revealed a problem with how we clone buffers with parents. The set up is this: You have a master that defines a macro, and a child that uses it. If you

Re: r38678 - in lyx-devel/trunk: . development/cmake

On 05/10/2011 11:27 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/05/11 11:01, Kornel a écrit : Nothing recomended here. The only recomendation is, that the build should not be in source tree. But we want keep the cmake-files together. I think keeping them with the source is better if you want

Re: CMake TODOs

On 05/10/2011 10:46 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/05/11 10:08, Kornel a écrit : Should we enable it? My take is yes. Developpers should test all coe. If it is unbearable then either a) someone finds the energy to fix it b) people configure with NLS=OFF, but they know it is wrong

Re: TRAC Resolutions

On 05/10/2011 02:12 PM, Richard Heck wrote: On 05/10/2011 06:58 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Third, when we switch to git, bugs will be fixed in branch first, then these changes get merged into master automatically. This is a separate issue, but surely this isn't true. Bugs will get

Re: Cloning Buffers with Parents

On 05/10/2011 03:19 PM, Guenter Milde wrote: On 2011-05-10, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 05/10/2011 11:15 AM, Guenter Milde wrote: On 2011-05-09, Richard Heck wrote: As, generally, the LyX - first-non-native-format (latex, html, text) export is fast Export to latex is not fast. It seems

Re: Cloning Buffers with Parents

On 05/10/2011 04:12 PM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 05/10/2011 03:19 PM, Guenter Milde wrote: (compared to the following steps and to image conversions), could we consider not to clone the buffer but do the initial export before starting a new thread? See above. There is no point in using

Re: r38678 - in lyx-devel/trunk: . development/cmake

On 05/09/2011 11:54 PM, kor...@lyx.org wrote: Author: kornel Date: Mon May 9 23:54:31 2011 New Revision: 38678 URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/38678 Log: Moved development/cmake/CMakeLists.txt into top level Why don't you put also all CMakeLists.txtin src/, frontends/ etc? Abdel.

Re: merging status of the Windows installer for LyX 2.0

On 05/09/2011 08:03 PM, Joost Verburg wrote: 1. the installer doesn't recognize if Ghostscript is already installed 2. the installer doesn't recognize if Python is already installed 3. the installer doesn't recognize if Imagemagick is already installed For computers where these are installed,

Re: Cloning Buffers with Parents

On 05/10/2011 11:15 AM, Guenter Milde wrote: On 2011-05-09, Richard Heck wrote: Discussion in the "Math Macros in Child Documents" thread has revealed a problem with how we clone buffers with parents. The set up is this: You have a master that defines a macro, and a child that uses it. If you

Re: r38678 - in lyx-devel/trunk: . development/cmake

On 05/10/2011 11:27 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/05/11 11:01, Kornel a écrit : Nothing recomended here. The only recomendation is, that the build should not be in source tree. But we want keep the cmake-files together. I think keeping them with the source is better if you want

Re: CMake TODOs

On 05/10/2011 10:46 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 10/05/11 10:08, Kornel a écrit : Should we enable it? My take is yes. Developpers should test all coe. If it is unbearable then either a) someone finds the energy to fix it b) people configure with NLS=OFF, but they know it is wrong

Re: TRAC Resolutions

On 05/10/2011 02:12 PM, Richard Heck wrote: On 05/10/2011 06:58 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Third, when we switch to git, bugs will be fixed in branch first, then these changes get merged into master automatically. This is a separate issue, but surely this isn't true. Bugs will get

Re: Cloning Buffers with Parents

On 05/10/2011 03:19 PM, Guenter Milde wrote: On 2011-05-10, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 05/10/2011 11:15 AM, Guenter Milde wrote: On 2011-05-09, Richard Heck wrote: As, generally, the LyX -> first-non-native-format (latex, html, text) export is fast Export to latex is not fast. It se

Re: Cloning Buffers with Parents

On 05/10/2011 04:12 PM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 05/10/2011 03:19 PM, Guenter Milde wrote: (compared to the following steps and to image conversions), could we consider not to clone the buffer but do the initial export before starting a new thread? See above. There is no point in using

Re: r38642 - lyx-devel/trunk/src/frontends/qt4/ui

On 08/05/2011 16:20, Pavel Sanda wrote: On 05/08/2011 08:28 AM, sa...@lyx.org wrote: Author: sanda Date: Sun May 8 14:28:54 2011 New Revision: 38642 URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/38642 Log: typo, closing #7427 Branch? no needed imho... pavel This is typically why our current

Re: r38642 - lyx-devel/trunk/src/frontends/qt4/ui

On 08/05/2011 18:36, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: typo, closing #7427 Branch? no needed imho... pavel This is typically why our current development model is so wrong. With proper branching and feature branches, you won't even ask the question, you would merge the typo branch

Re: r38642 - lyx-devel/trunk/src/frontends/qt4/ui

On 08/05/2011 16:20, Pavel Sanda wrote: On 05/08/2011 08:28 AM, sa...@lyx.org wrote: Author: sanda Date: Sun May 8 14:28:54 2011 New Revision: 38642 URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/38642 Log: typo, closing #7427 Branch? no needed imho... pavel This is typically why our current

Re: r38642 - lyx-devel/trunk/src/frontends/qt4/ui

On 08/05/2011 18:36, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: typo, closing #7427 Branch? no needed imho... pavel This is typically why our current development model is so wrong. With proper branching and feature branches, you won't even ask the question, you would merge the "

Re: CMake TODOs

On 06/05/2011 10:28, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 06.05.2011 um 10:15 schrieb Kornel: Am Freitag, 6. Mai 2011 schrieb Stephan Witt: Am 06.05.2011 um 09:08 schrieb Kornel: Am Freitag, 6. Mai 2011 schrieb Stephan Witt: Bug fixing * Run in place, without using LYX_DIR_20x copy the resources

Re: r38605 - lyx-devel/branches/BRANCH_1_6_X

On 06/05/2011 10:40, sp...@lyx.org wrote: Author: spitz Date: Fri May 6 10:40:37 2011 New Revision: 38605 URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/38605 Log: So schlafe nun du Kleine! Was weinest du? Sanft ist im Mondenscheine, Und süß die Ruh. Je vous demande pardon?

Re: r38605 - lyx-devel/branches/BRANCH_1_6_X

On 06/05/2011 10:46, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Log: So schlafe nun du Kleine! Was weinest du? Sanft ist im Mondenscheine, Und süß die Ruh. Je vous demande pardon? Un adieu privée ... Voilà ce que dit Google :-) Alors maintenant dormir un peu! Qu'est-ce que vous

Re: CMake TODOs

On 06/05/2011 11:09, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 06/05/2011 10:36, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : The solution would be to create the XCode project with the -sysdir arguments at first. Then the copy wouldn't be necessary. Or any other idea would be fine. Unfortunately cmake recreates the XCode

Re: CMake TODOs

On 06/05/2011 12:10, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 06/05/2011 11:58, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : So much for cmake native support. Xcode is using gcc AFAIK... CMake can generate either XCode project or plain Makefile. Both are native to Mac AFAIK. QtCreator on Mac is native. It use

Re: CMake TODOs

On 06/05/2011 12:15, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 06/05/2011 12:10, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : PS: I am not specially trying to kill cmake, but presenting it as a solution to all problems is not helpful. To be more precise: I am against saying let's drop autotools cmake is so much

Re: CMake TODOs

On 06/05/2011 10:28, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 06.05.2011 um 10:15 schrieb Kornel: Am Freitag, 6. Mai 2011 schrieb Stephan Witt: Am 06.05.2011 um 09:08 schrieb Kornel: Am Freitag, 6. Mai 2011 schrieb Stephan Witt: Bug fixing * Run in place, without using LYX_DIR_20x copy the resources

Re: r38605 - lyx-devel/branches/BRANCH_1_6_X

On 06/05/2011 10:40, sp...@lyx.org wrote: Author: spitz Date: Fri May 6 10:40:37 2011 New Revision: 38605 URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/38605 Log: So schlafe nun du Kleine! Was weinest du? Sanft ist im Mondenscheine, Und süß die Ruh. Je vous demande pardon?

Re: r38605 - lyx-devel/branches/BRANCH_1_6_X

On 06/05/2011 10:46, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Log: So schlafe nun du Kleine! Was weinest du? Sanft ist im Mondenscheine, Und süß die Ruh. Je vous demande pardon? Un adieu privée ... Voilà ce que dit Google :-) Alors maintenant dormir un peu! Qu'est-ce que vous

Re: CMake TODOs

On 06/05/2011 11:09, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 06/05/2011 10:36, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : The solution would be to create the XCode project with the -sysdir arguments at first. Then the copy wouldn't be necessary. Or any other idea would be fine. Unfortunately cmake recreates the XCode

Re: CMake TODOs

On 06/05/2011 12:10, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 06/05/2011 11:58, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : So much for cmake native support. Xcode is using gcc AFAIK... CMake can generate either XCode project or plain Makefile. Both are native to Mac AFAIK. QtCreator on Mac is native. It use

Re: CMake TODOs

On 06/05/2011 12:15, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 06/05/2011 12:10, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : PS: I am not specially trying to kill cmake, but presenting it as a solution to all problems is not helpful. To be more precise: I am against saying "let's drop autotools cmake is so much

Re: Dictionaries location for LyX on Linux

On 05/05/2011 07:36, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 04.05.2011 um 23:42 schrieb Pavel Sanda: Stephan Witt wrote: Sorry, I think this must be was a side effect of some change - at first the debug output had path names... Stephan i have next problems. i see you coded some checking for the header of

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 05/05/2011 10:31, Pavel Sanda wrote: Liviu Andronic wrote: On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Guenter Mildemi...@users.berlios.de wrote: elyx might be confusing (as it does not have any relation to the elyxer LyX-HTML converter). We could consider 'blyx' (from Bundle LyX) or 'glyx' (from

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 05/05/2011 11:13, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 05.05.2011 um 10:55 schrieb Liviu Andronic: On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Stephan Wittst.w...@gmx.net wrote: Aren't the 'Bundle LyX' and 'GIT LyX' feature somehow orthogonal? Abdel characterized the Embedded GIT format as equivalent (or

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 05/05/2011 11:12, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 04/05/11 18:57, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : So I'd say currently CMake is useful but without it I'm able to work. Without automake currently we have nothing to distribute. So we have to work on it... and I am confident that it is possible

Re: Development of a development model

On 04/05/2011 01:00, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi all, I think that there is a large enough support for the new development model and/or introduction of git to think about how to make things more concrete. I'm aware there might be some learning curve for developers who are not used to git

Re: Feature request: the missing element in the LyX office suite

On 05/05/2011 18:04, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: Il 04/05/2011 19:07, Abdelrazak Younes ha scritto: Indeed. But I could well imagine a simple OctaveInset that would get the table cell indexes as arguments and automatically call Octave to compute the result. Similar what we can do with Octave

Re: Dictionaries location for LyX on Linux

On 05/05/2011 07:36, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 04.05.2011 um 23:42 schrieb Pavel Sanda: Stephan Witt wrote: Sorry, I think this must be was a side effect of some change - at first the debug output had path names... Stephan i have next problems. i see you coded some checking for the header of

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 05/05/2011 10:31, Pavel Sanda wrote: Liviu Andronic wrote: On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Guenter Milde wrote: "elyx" might be confusing (as it does not have any relation to the "elyxer" LyX->HTML converter). We could consider 'blyx' (from Bundle LyX) or 'glyx'

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 05/05/2011 11:13, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 05.05.2011 um 10:55 schrieb Liviu Andronic: On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Stephan Witt wrote: Aren't the 'Bundle LyX' and 'GIT LyX' "feature" somehow orthogonal? Abdel characterized the Embedded GIT format as equivalent (or

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 05/05/2011 11:12, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 04/05/11 18:57, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : So I'd say currently CMake is useful but without it I'm able to work. Without automake currently we have nothing to distribute. So we have to work on it... and I am confident that it is possible

Re: Development of a development model

On 04/05/2011 01:00, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi all, I think that there is a large enough support for the new development model and/or introduction of git to think about how to make things more concrete. I'm aware there might be some learning curve for developers who are not used to git

Re: Feature request: the missing element in the LyX office suite

On 05/05/2011 18:04, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: Il 04/05/2011 19:07, Abdelrazak Younes ha scritto: Indeed. But I could well imagine a simple OctaveInset that would get the table cell indexes as arguments and automatically call Octave to compute the result. Similar what we can do with Octave

Re: Development for LyX 2.1

On 04/05/2011 00:29, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Agreed. I think we should switch to git right now. Let's not rush: - Where do we want to host it ? gitorious is fine. - How are we gonna set up the cvs-log list ? I don't really care :-) - Lots of people are not familiar with git

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 00:50, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi everyone, As a typical start of a new release cycle I want to poll - what features are a must in the next release; Features: * Git based Embedded LyX. * User customizable toolbars. * Ability to produce LyX and pdf diff document from the

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 14:41, Richard Heck wrote: On 05/04/2011 08:26 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 00:50, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi everyone, As a typical start of a new release cycle I want to poll - what features are a must in the next release; Features: * Git based Embedded LyX

Re: [PATCH] #7525

On 04/05/2011 14:43, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:36:00AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: On 05/03/2011 09:48 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 05:17:33PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: Yes, we also don't need threads. I am glad that you also agree on that.

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 14:26, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 00:50, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi everyone, As a typical start of a new release cycle I want to poll - what features are a must in the next release; Features: * Git based Embedded LyX. * User customizable toolbars. * Ability

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 16:32, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: * Use CMake as our build system for all platforms I am strongly against this. I should have said: * Use CMake as our _main_ build system for all platforms We can of course still

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:08, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:52:16PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 16:32, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: * Use CMake as our build system for all platforms I am strongly

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:19, Rob Oakes wrote: Hi Abdel, Git based Embedded LyX format is about using a git repo as if it was an embedded LyX file with child docs and graphics and all. This git repo would basically replace the zip archives we've been talking about. The bonus is of course that not

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:27, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: Il 04/05/2011 17:16, Rob Oakes ha scritto: Software bloat is a term used to describe the tendency of newer computer programs to have a larger installation footprint, or have many unnecessary features that are not used by end users, or just

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:31, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:12:30PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 17:08, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:52:16PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 16:32, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011

Re: Development of a development model

On 04/05/2011 16:16, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org mailto:sa...@lyx.org wrote: Andre Poenitz wrote: Close to the current svn model, but allow people to use branches for non-trivial feature sets if they like? +1

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:36, Rob Oakes wrote: Hi Abdel, Sorry for the general density. No need to say sorry. I'm an infant amongst men when it comes to most programming things. I think you are doing just good. Abdel.

Re: Package name for Branch 2.0

On 04/05/2011 17:53, Enrico Forestieri wrote: What I mean is that with the autotools I can configure using --with-version-suffix=-2.0 in one case and --with-version-suffix=-2.1 in the other case, obtaining 2 different installations that do not conflict at all. I could even install 2 different

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:58, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: No, we have a cross-platform program, we need a real cross-platform build system, as simple as that. And yes, cygwin is just another platform, but it is not our main Windows platform. i dont have hard opinions whether cmake

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:22, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:37:47PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 17:31, Enrico Forestieri wrote: I really don't understand the cygwin argument here. I was answering your argument about autotools portability to Windows in advance

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:44, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:32:02PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote: Enrico Forestierifor...@lyx.org wrote: And after I do that they will magically disappear? What I can do is voting pro or against a particular feature when it is proposed, but it is the

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:57, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 04.05.2011 um 18:31 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: On 04/05/2011 18:22, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:37:47PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 17:31, Enrico Forestieri wrote: I really don't understand the cygwin

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:59, Enrico Forestieri wrote: So, much ado about nothing? Exactly.

Re: Feature request: the missing element in the LyX office suite

On 04/05/2011 18:42, Pavel Sanda wrote: Andrew Parsloe wrote: Yes, but it would be nice to be able to sum a table in LyX without having to fire up Gnumeric or Excel or whatever. (To take matters to extremes, you this is the same as request that we should introduce some 'simple' graphics

Re: 80 chars rule (was: Too much options in LyX)

On 04/05/2011 19:38, Pavel Sanda wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char limit is a pita ? another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita but i find the two lines better. you don't? Part of the two exceptions:

Re: Development for LyX 2.1

On 04/05/2011 00:29, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Agreed. I think we should switch to git right now. Let's not rush: - Where do we want to host it ? gitorious is fine. - How are we gonna set up the cvs-log list ? I don't really care :-) - Lots of people are not familiar with git

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 00:50, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi everyone, As a typical start of a new release cycle I want to poll - what features are a must in the next release; Features: * Git based Embedded LyX. * User customizable toolbars. * Ability to produce LyX and pdf diff document from the

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 14:41, Richard Heck wrote: On 05/04/2011 08:26 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 00:50, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi everyone, As a typical start of a new release cycle I want to poll - what features are a must in the next release; Features: * Git based Embedded LyX

Re: [PATCH] #7525

On 04/05/2011 14:43, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:36:00AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: On 05/03/2011 09:48 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 05:17:33PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote: Yes, we also don't need threads. I am glad that you also agree on that.

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 14:26, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 00:50, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Hi everyone, As a typical start of a new release cycle I want to poll - what features are a must in the next release; Features: * Git based Embedded LyX. * User customizable toolbars. * Ability

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 16:32, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: * Use CMake as our build system for all platforms I am strongly against this. I should have said: * Use CMake as our _main_ build system for all platforms We can of course still

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:08, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:52:16PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 16:32, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: * Use CMake as our build system for all platforms I am strongly

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:19, Rob Oakes wrote: Hi Abdel, "Git based Embedded LyX format" is about using a git repo as if it was an embedded LyX file with child docs and graphics and all. This git repo would basically replace the zip archives we've been talking about. The bonus is of course that not

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:27, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: Il 04/05/2011 17:16, Rob Oakes ha scritto: Software bloat is a term used to describe the tendency of newer computer programs to have a larger installation footprint, or have many unnecessary features that are not used by end users, or just

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:31, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:12:30PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 17:08, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:52:16PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 16:32, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011

Re: Development of a development model

On 04/05/2011 16:16, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Pavel Sanda > wrote: Andre Poenitz wrote: > Close to the current svn model, but allow people to use branches for > non-trivial feature sets if they like?

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:36, Rob Oakes wrote: Hi Abdel, Sorry for the general density. No need to say sorry. I'm an infant amongst men when it comes to most programming things. I think you are doing just good. Abdel.

Re: Package name for Branch 2.0

On 04/05/2011 17:53, Enrico Forestieri wrote: What I mean is that with the autotools I can configure using --with-version-suffix=-2.0 in one case and --with-version-suffix=-2.1 in the other case, obtaining 2 different installations that do not conflict at all. I could even install 2 different

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 17:58, Pavel Sanda wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: No, we have a cross-platform program, we need a real cross-platform build system, as simple as that. And yes, cygwin is just another platform, but it is not our main Windows platform. i dont have hard opinions whether cmake

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:22, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:37:47PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 17:31, Enrico Forestieri wrote: I really don't understand the cygwin argument here. I was answering your argument about autotools portability to Windows in advance

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:44, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:32:02PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote: Enrico Forestieri wrote: And after I do that they will magically disappear? What I can do is voting pro or against a particular feature when it is proposed, but it is

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:57, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 04.05.2011 um 18:31 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes: On 04/05/2011 18:22, Enrico Forestieri wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:37:47PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 04/05/2011 17:31, Enrico Forestieri wrote: I really don't understand the cygwin

Re: Goals for 2.1

On 04/05/2011 18:59, Enrico Forestieri wrote: So, much ado about nothing? Exactly.

Re: Feature request: the missing element in the LyX office suite

On 04/05/2011 18:42, Pavel Sanda wrote: Andrew Parsloe wrote: Yes, but it would be nice to be able to sum a table in LyX without having to fire up Gnumeric or Excel or whatever. (To take matters to extremes, you this is the same as request that we should introduce some 'simple' graphics

Re: 80 chars rule (was: Too much options in LyX)

On 04/05/2011 19:38, Pavel Sanda wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char limit is a pita ? another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita but i find the two lines better. you don't? Part of the two exceptions:

Re: Trunk is completely frozen for any commits [unfrozen]

On 03/05/2011 13:51, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 03.05.2011 um 12:06 schrieb Pavel Sanda: Pavel Sanda wrote: please note that trunk is STILL FROZEN. waiting for acks around. the lock is relased. we have branch for 2.0.0 and no critical reports. Stephan, Joost I plan to announce the whole thing

Re: Release manager for 2.1

On 03/05/2011 12:02, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: So at this stage I propose Vincent van Ravesteijn as a new relase manager. (Vincent tentatively accepted taking this responsibility.) Very good choice. Thanks Vincent for applying. Indeed :-) For the rest of things on my

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >