Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:24:29AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
A while ago there was almost no email concerning MS Windows and
everybody was happy with it.
Please define everybody.
Erm.
Me, myself, I, and a few others.
OK, then that's more than 3 and you can say
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:24:29AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
A while ago there was almost no email concerning MS Windows and
everybody was happy with it.
Please define everybody.
Erm.
Me, myself, I, and a few others.
OK, then that's more than 3 and you can say
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:57:39PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
scons support means nothing to users. This is not a new feature to
brag about, just a convenience for us.
Well, given the fact that about 50% of all lyx-devel emails deal with MS
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't want to speak for all new (windows) developers but I think we
have done a bit more than just windows support.
So you have indeed. And you're all very welcome.
If you are not happy with all the mails about Scons and MSVC and all,
we should
I don't want to speak for all new (windows) developers but I think we
have done a bit more than just windows support.
I came as a *nix developer, until I find that windows is the weak link
of the lyx product chain. This is somehow unfortunately to me since I
am not a frequent windows user, and
Bo == Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't want to speak for all new (windows) developers but I think
we have done a bit more than just windows support.
Bo I came as a *nix developer, until I find that windows is the weak
Bo link of the lyx product chain.
Sure, it was the newest
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:24:29AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
A while ago there was almost no email concerning MS Windows and
everybody was happy with it.
Please define everybody.
Erm.
Me, myself, I, and a few others.
I am not very fond of windows but I am forced to it. So are many
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:57:39PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
scons support means nothing to users. This is not a new feature to
brag about, just a convenience for us.
Well, given the fact that about 50% of all lyx-devel emails deal with MS
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't want to speak for all new (windows) developers but I think we
> have done a bit more than just windows support.
So you have indeed. And you're all very welcome.
> If you are not happy with all the mails about Scons and MSVC and all,
> we
I don't want to speak for all new (windows) developers but I think we
have done a bit more than just windows support.
I came as a *nix developer, until I find that windows is the weak link
of the lyx product chain. This is somehow unfortunately to me since I
am not a frequent windows user, and
> "Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't want to speak for all new (windows) developers but I think
>> we have done a bit more than just windows support.
Bo> I came as a *nix developer, until I find that windows is the weak
Bo> link of the lyx product chain.
Sure, it was
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:24:29AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >A while ago there was almost no email concerning MS Windows and
> >everybody was happy with it.
>
> Please define everybody.
Erm.
Me, myself, I, and a few others.
> I am not very fond of windows but I am forced to it. So are
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:57:39PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
scons support means nothing to users. This is not a new feature to
brag about, just a convenience for us.
Well, given the fact that about 50% of all lyx-devel emails deal with MS
Windows
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 05:48:01PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Jose' Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 18:03, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
I think we should ponder that carefully. If we really intend to
get unicode support into 1.5 (which we want, don't we?), the bell
Andre == Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andre On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:57:39PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
scons support means nothing to users. This is not a new feature to
brag about, just a convenience for us.
Well, given the fact that about
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
scons support means nothing to users. This is not a new feature to
brag about, just a convenience for us.
Well, given the fact that about 50% of all lyx-devel emails deal with MS
Windows problems, scons is a BIG step forward.
A while ago there
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 04:48:48PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Sure we have lots of issues related specifically to Windows but we are also
starting to attract new dev faces for the first time in a very long time.
These
new faces are all sitting in front of Windows boxen. Even Enrico who's
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:57:39PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> >scons support means nothing to users. This is not a new feature to
> >brag about, just a convenience for us.
> >
> >
> Well, given the fact that about 50% of all lyx-devel emails deal with MS
>
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 05:48:01PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tuesday 30 May 2006 18:03, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > > I think we should ponder that carefully. If we really intend to
> > > get unicode support into 1.5 (which we want, don't
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:57:39PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
>> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>
>> >scons support means nothing to users. This is not a new feature to
>> >brag about, just a convenience for us.
>> >
>> >
>> Well,
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >scons support means nothing to users. This is not a new feature to
> > >brag about, just a convenience for us.
> > Well, given the fact that about 50% of all lyx-devel emails deal with MS
> > Windows problems, scons is a BIG step forward.
> A while
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 04:48:48PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Sure we have lots of issues related specifically to Windows but we are also
> starting to attract new dev faces for the first time in a very long time.
> These
> new faces are all sitting in front of Windows boxen. Even Enrico
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 18:48, Angus Leeming wrote:
The people of Pisa have shown the world the troubles that await those who
build on top of insufficient foundations ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa
Also, if I remember correctly another problem was the desertion of
Michael == Michael Gerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael I just wanted to express my concern that we start too many
Michael projects at the same time. If unicode support is ready within
Michael a reasonable time, then it's perfect.
Now you are rewriting history. At the developers meeting, we
Michael == Michael Gerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael IMHO change tracking in 1.4 is problematic. That's why I try
Michael to rewrite it for 1.5.
But I think you overestimate the importance this has for end-users. It
is important for some people, but not vital. Likewise, qt4 is nice for
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 18:48, Angus Leeming wrote:
> The people of Pisa have shown the world the troubles that await those who
> build on top of insufficient foundations ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa
Also, if I remember correctly another problem was the desertion of
> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> I just wanted to express my concern that we start too many
Michael> projects at the same time. If unicode support is ready within
Michael> a reasonable time, then it's perfect.
Now you are rewriting history. At the developers
> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> IMHO change tracking in 1.4 is problematic. That's why I try
Michael> to rewrite it for 1.5.
But I think you overestimate the importance this has for end-users. It
is important for some people, but not vital. Likewise, qt4 is
Michael Gerz wrote:
- 3 (!) build systems (auto*, scons, cmake; the latter at least under
discussion)
Please don't put oil on the fire (do we say that in English?). Peter
work on CMake has already already helped Bo in his Scons-msvc adventure;
so it was worth it for that alone. Besides, we
On Monday 29 May 2006 19:55, Michael Gerz wrote:
Do we still care about xforms? Why don't we remove it?
Guys, I am getting more and more worried about how LyX evolves.
Currently, we have
- 5 (!) frontends (xforms, gtk, qt3, qt4, kde)
- 3 (!) build systems (auto*, scons, cmake; the
Michael == Michael Gerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Do we still care about xforms? Why don't we remove it?
We should try to have a good idea of who uses xforms and why. Maybe
ask on lyx-users or setup some kind of poll.
Michael Are we still working on a text processor? Or has LyX turned
Georg == Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Georg Please fix this. I don't know whether the values from lyx_main
Georg or the ones from XParseGeometry should be used.
Georg, what about this?
JMarc
Index: src/frontends/lyx_gui.h
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Georg Please fix this. I don't know whether the values from lyx_main
Georg or the ones from XParseGeometry should be used.
Georg, what about this?
Looks good (assuming that XParseGeometry does not change the given values if
it has nothing to parse).
Georg
Georg == Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Georg Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Please fix this. I don't know
Georg whether the values from lyx_main or the ones from
Georg XParseGeometry should be used.
Georg, what about this?
Georg Looks good (assuming that XParseGeometry does not change the
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:18:38AM +0100, Jose' Matos wrote:
This is a bit shortsighted Michael, what you are proposing is what we
have. :-)
1.4.x is worse than 1.3.7 in a few areas...
Andre'
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 17:21, Andre Poenitz wrote:
This is a bit shortsighted Michael, what you are proposing is what we
have. :-)
1.4.x is worse than 1.3.7 in a few areas...
I agree, for lots of reasons, after all 1.4.x in three years will be a lot
more stable than any 1.5.x we can
Georg Baum wrote:
Do we still care about xforms? Why don't we remove it?
I proposed that already several times and am fine with it, but others
disagreed. Dropping xforms support silently and let it die a slow death
would be unfair to users. We should either remove it officially, or
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 18:03, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
I think we should ponder that carefully. If we really intend to get unicode
support into 1.5 (which we want, don't we?), the bell for xforms tolls (is
that an appropriate phrase)?
Given that people (including me) intend to add some new
Jose' Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 18:03, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
I think we should ponder that carefully. If we really intend to get unicode
support into 1.5 (which we want, don't we?), the bell for xforms tolls (is
that an appropriate phrase)?
Given that
Jose' Matos wrote:
This is a bit shortsighted Michael, what you are proposing is what we
have. :-)
Well, that's not really true. The Qt4 frontend has not been completed
yet, and CT is still under development, too.
I just wanted to express my concern that we start too many projects at
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
scons support means nothing to users. This is not a new feature to
brag about, just a convenience for us.
Well, given the fact that about 50% of all lyx-devel emails deal with MS
Windows problems, scons is a BIG step forward. But you are right, the
end user
Michael Gerz wrote:
- 3 (!) build systems (auto*, scons, cmake; the latter at least under
discussion)
Please don't put oil on the fire (do we say that in English?). Peter
work on CMake has already already helped Bo in his Scons-msvc adventure;
so it was worth it for that alone. Besides, we
On Monday 29 May 2006 19:55, Michael Gerz wrote:
> Do we still care about xforms? Why don't we remove it?
>
> Guys, I am getting more and more worried about how LyX evolves.
> Currently, we have
>
> - 5 (!) frontends (xforms, gtk, qt3, qt4, kde)
> - 3 (!) build systems (auto*, scons, cmake;
> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Do we still care about xforms? Why don't we remove it?
We should try to have a good idea of who uses xforms and why. Maybe
ask on lyx-users or setup some kind of poll.
Michael> Are we still working on a text processor? Or has
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> Please fix this. I don't know whether the values from lyx_main
Georg> or the ones from XParseGeometry should be used.
Georg, what about this?
JMarc
Index: src/frontends/lyx_gui.h
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Georg> Please fix this. I don't know whether the values from lyx_main
> Georg> or the ones from XParseGeometry should be used.
>
> Georg, what about this?
Looks good (assuming that XParseGeometry does not change the given values if
it has nothing to parse).
Georg
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Please fix this. I don't know
Georg> whether the values from lyx_main or the ones from
Georg> XParseGeometry should be used.
>> Georg, what about this?
Georg> Looks good (assuming that XParseGeometry does
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:18:38AM +0100, Jose' Matos wrote:
> This is a bit shortsighted Michael, what you are proposing is what we
> have. :-)
1.4.x is worse than 1.3.7 in a few areas...
Andre'
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 17:21, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > This is a bit shortsighted Michael, what you are proposing is what we
> > have. :-)
>
> 1.4.x is worse than 1.3.7 in a few areas...
I agree, for lots of reasons, after all 1.4.x in three years will be a lot
more stable than any 1.5.x we
Georg Baum wrote:
>> Do we still care about xforms? Why don't we remove it?
>
> I proposed that already several times and am fine with it, but others
> disagreed. Dropping xforms support silently and let it die a slow death
> would be unfair to users. We should either remove it officially, or
>
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 18:03, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> I think we should ponder that carefully. If we really intend to get unicode
> support into 1.5 (which we want, don't we?), the bell for xforms tolls (is
> that an appropriate phrase)?
> Given that people (including me) intend to add some
Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 30 May 2006 18:03, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > I think we should ponder that carefully. If we really intend to get unicode
> > support into 1.5 (which we want, don't we?), the bell for xforms tolls (is
> > that an appropriate phrase)?
> >
Jose' Matos wrote:
This is a bit shortsighted Michael, what you are proposing is what we
have. :-)
Well, that's not really true. The Qt4 frontend has not been completed
yet, and CT is still under development, too.
I just wanted to express my concern that we start too many projects at
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
scons support means nothing to users. This is not a new feature to
brag about, just a convenience for us.
Well, given the fact that about 50% of all lyx-devel emails deal with MS
Windows problems, scons is a BIG step forward. But you are right, the
end user
Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 17:11 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Move window width/height/posx/posy from frontends to lyx_main.C, from Bo
Peng ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
* src/frontends/ALLFRONTENDS/lyx_gui.C: use passed
width/height/posx/posy in lyx_gui::start
* src/frontends/lyx_gui.h:
xforms does not compile:
../../../../src/frontends/xforms/lyx_gui.C:260: error: invalid conversion
from 'int*' to 'unsigned int*'
../../../../src/frontends/xforms/lyx_gui.C:260: error: initializing
argument 4 of 'int XParseGeometry(const char*, int*, int*, unsigned int*,
unsigned int*)'
Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 21:16 schrieb Bo Peng:
I do not have xform so I can not test. Since all other platforms use
w/h/x/y values from lyx_main.C, I guess it makes sense to ignore
XParseGeometry as well.
I don't agree. AFAIK XParseGeometry evaluates the -geometry command line
switch. Users
Georg Baum wrote:
xforms does not compile:
Do we still care about xforms? Why don't we remove it?
Guys, I am getting more and more worried about how LyX evolves.
Currently, we have
- 5 (!) frontends (xforms, gtk, qt3, qt4, kde)
- 3 (!) build systems (auto*, scons, cmake; the latter at
Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 20:55 schrieb Michael Gerz:
Do we still care about xforms? Why don't we remove it?
I proposed that already several times and am fine with it, but others
disagreed. Dropping xforms support silently and let it die a slow death
would be unfair to users. We should either
Georg == Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Georg IMO the -geometry switch should take precedence over the
Georg session settings. If you change the interface of lyx_gui::start
Georg so that it is known inside lyx_gui::start whether the geometry
Georg info comes from the session or some
Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 17:11 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Move window width/height/posx/posy from frontends to lyx_main.C, from Bo
Peng ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> * src/frontends/ALLFRONTENDS/lyx_gui.C: use passed
width/height/posx/posy in lyx_gui::start
> * src/frontends/lyx_gui.h:
xforms does not compile:
../../../../src/frontends/xforms/lyx_gui.C:260: error: invalid conversion
from 'int*' to 'unsigned int*'
../../../../src/frontends/xforms/lyx_gui.C:260: error: initializing
argument 4 of 'int XParseGeometry(const char*, int*, int*, unsigned int*,
unsigned int*)'
Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 21:16 schrieb Bo Peng:
> I do not have xform so I can not test. Since all other platforms use
> w/h/x/y values from lyx_main.C, I guess it makes sense to ignore
> XParseGeometry as well.
I don't agree. AFAIK XParseGeometry evaluates the -geometry command line
switch.
Georg Baum wrote:
xforms does not compile:
Do we still care about xforms? Why don't we remove it?
Guys, I am getting more and more worried about how LyX evolves.
Currently, we have
- 5 (!) frontends (xforms, gtk, qt3, qt4, kde)
- 3 (!) build systems (auto*, scons, cmake; the latter at
Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 20:55 schrieb Michael Gerz:
> Do we still care about xforms? Why don't we remove it?
I proposed that already several times and am fine with it, but others
disagreed. Dropping xforms support silently and let it die a slow death
would be unfair to users. We should either
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> IMO the -geometry switch should take precedence over the
Georg> session settings. If you change the interface of lyx_gui::start
Georg> so that it is known inside lyx_gui::start whether the geometry
Georg> info comes from the session
66 matches
Mail list logo
