On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:23:33PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > Thanks for the feedback, Günter and Andrew. I propose two questions for
> > > going forward:
> > > (2) Which behavior should be changed?
> > I'm still looking for feedback on the above issue.
>
> If no one has feedback,
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:32:27PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 09:34:40PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:07:35AM +1300, Andrew Parsloe wrote:
> > > On 21/11/2016 6:34 p.m., Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >
> > > As an occasional user of
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 09:34:40PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:07:35AM +1300, Andrew Parsloe wrote:
> > On 21/11/2016 6:34 p.m., Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
> > As an occasional user of branches, when I deactivate a branch I expect the
> > state of insets in the branch
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:07:35AM +1300, Andrew Parsloe wrote:
> On 21/11/2016 6:34 p.m., Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> As an occasional user of branches, when I deactivate a branch I expect the
> state of insets in the branch to be left in their current state, some open,
> some closed, as the case
On 21/11/2016 6:34 p.m., Scott Kostyshak wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:22:19PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:22:57PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Shrug. Opening branch insets I'm activating seems pretty intuitive to me. Pavel
OK let's keep that behavior then,
On 2016-11-21, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: quoted-printable --]
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:22:19PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:22:57PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> > Shrug. Opening branch insets I'm activating seems pretty intuitive
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:22:19PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:22:57PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
> > Shrug. Opening branch insets I'm activating seems pretty intuitive to me.
> > Pavel
>
> OK let's keep that behavior then, especially since it's been in LyX for
>
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 05:22:57PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Shrug. Opening branch insets I'm activating seems pretty intuitive to me.
> Pavel
OK let's keep that behavior then, especially since it's been in LyX for
a long time.
Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 09:39:01PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > Even if the intention is to only do it when the user
> > > activates/deactivates a branch in the branches tab of document settings,
> >
> > that's the point. if you have many
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 09:39:01PM -0700, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Even if the intention is to only do it when the user
> > activates/deactivates a branch in the branches tab of document settings,
>
> that's the point. if you have many branches it can be annoying
> change
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Even if the intention is to only do it when the user
> activates/deactivates a branch in the branches tab of document settings,
that's the point. if you have many branches it can be annoying
change all of that manually. that does not justify global
opening/closing when
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 06:08:13PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Thoughts?
Patch attached.
Scott
From d0df5f87ca180e2b6ab8c1276718f644061d44d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Scott Kostyshak <skost...@lyx.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 17:50:40 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Do not open or close
I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing something here, but what is the
point of opening and closing branch insets based on whether they are
active, for every change of document setting? The attached patch removes
this behavior, which was first introduced a long time ago at fd6cd728.
To reproduce
13 matches
Mail list logo
