Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

2014-03-28 18:00 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes lasgout...@lyx.org: Could we also see the (untranslated) debug channel name? There are some description that do not allow me to find the corresponding channel (especially with a French UI). +1. This bugs me all the time. Jürgen JMarc

Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

On 03/28/2014 01:09 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: 2014-03-28 18:00 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes lasgout...@lyx.org mailto:lasgout...@lyx.org: Could we also see the (untranslated) debug channel name? There are some description that do not allow me to find the corresponding channel

Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

Le 28/03/2014 17:53, Richard Heck a écrit : This will make it easier for all of us, and especially users, to find the right option. Patch attached. Thoughts? Could we also see the (untranslated) debug channel name? There are some description that do not allow me to find the corresponding

Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

debug options in the progress pane by string. --- src/frontends/qt4/GuiProgressView.cpp | 29 + 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiProgressView.cpp b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiProgressView.cpp index a22ea60..b5ee7dd 100644

Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

2014-03-28 18:12 GMT+01:00 Richard Heck: How about something like: Math editor (mathed) Math macros (macros) Or would you prefer: macros: Math macros mathed: Math editor Or ?? I would prefer the latter, but only because I know (and look for) the internal names. Jürgen

Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

On 03/28/2014 01:23 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: 2014-03-28 18:12 GMT+01:00 Richard Heck: How about something like: Math editor (mathed) Math macros (macros) Or would you prefer: macros: Math macros mathed: Math editor Or ?? I would prefer the

Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

Le 28/03/2014 18:12, Richard Heck a écrit : How about something like: Math editor (mathed) Math macros (macros) Or would you prefer: macros: Math macros mathed: Math editor Either the second solution, or an additional column for the identifier. JMarc

Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

2014-03-28 18:00 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > Could we also see the (untranslated) debug channel name? There are some > description that do not allow me to find the corresponding channel > (especially with a French UI). > +1. This bugs me all the time. Jürgen > >

Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

On 03/28/2014 01:09 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: 2014-03-28 18:00 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes >: Could we also see the (untranslated) debug channel name? There are some description that do not allow me to find the corresponding

Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

Le 28/03/2014 17:53, Richard Heck a écrit : This will make it easier for all of us, and especially users, to find the right option. Patch attached. Thoughts? Could we also see the (untranslated) debug channel name? There are some description that do not allow me to find the corresponding

Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

TCH] Sort debug options in the progress pane by string. --- src/frontends/qt4/GuiProgressView.cpp | 29 + 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiProgressView.cpp b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiProgressView.cpp index a22ea60..b5ee7

Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

2014-03-28 18:12 GMT+01:00 Richard Heck: > How about something like: > Math editor (mathed) > Math macros (macros) > Or would you prefer: > macros: Math macros > mathed: Math editor > Or ?? > I would prefer the latter, but only because I know (and look for) the internal names.

Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

On 03/28/2014 01:23 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: 2014-03-28 18:12 GMT+01:00 Richard Heck: How about something like: Math editor (mathed) Math macros (macros) Or would you prefer: macros: Math macros mathed: Math editor Or ?? I would prefer the

Re: Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

Le 28/03/2014 18:12, Richard Heck a écrit : How about something like: Math editor (mathed) Math macros (macros) Or would you prefer: macros: Math macros mathed: Math editor Either the second solution, or an additional column for the identifier. JMarc

Re: 2.1 release progress

Op 17-7-2013 0:12, Uwe Stöhr schreef: Am 13.07.2013 16:32, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: The release notes and announce are updates. I will release the beta tonight. I prepared a Win installer for this beta: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lyxwininstaller/files/TestVersions/ regards Uwe

Re: 2.1 release progress

Op 17-7-2013 0:12, Uwe Stöhr schreef: Am 13.07.2013 16:32, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: The release notes and announce are updates. I will release the beta tonight. I prepared a Win installer for this beta: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lyxwininstaller/files/TestVersions/ regards Uwe

Re: 2.1 release progress

Op 14 jul. 2013 16:30 schreef Kornel Benko kor...@lyx.org het volgende: Am Samstag, 13. Juli 2013 um 23:03:45, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn v...@lyx.org I only left one out: tex2lyx roundtrip: Ignore the info abour the lyx-version which created a .lyx file if comparing the content of

Re: 2.1 release progress

Am 13.07.2013 16:32, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: The release notes and announce are updates. I will release the beta tonight. I prepared a Win installer for this beta: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lyxwininstaller/files/TestVersions/ regards Uwe

Re: 2.1 release progress

Op 14 jul. 2013 16:30 schreef "Kornel Benko" het volgende: > > Am Samstag, 13. Juli 2013 um 23:03:45, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn < v...@lyx.org> > > > > I only left one out: "tex2lyx roundtrip: Ignore the info abour the > > > > lyx-version which created a .lyx file if

Re: 2.1 release progress

Am 13.07.2013 16:32, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: The release notes and announce are updates. I will release the beta tonight. I prepared a Win installer for this beta: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lyxwininstaller/files/TestVersions/ regards Uwe

Re: 2.1 release progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I'm still around, but I can't cope with preparing the release and to keep track of all latest patches and bug fixes that might want to get in. Then please ask for help, i.e. let somebody filter them for you. The release notes and announce are updates. I will

Re: 2.1 release progress

Am Samstag, 13. Juli 2013 um 23:03:45, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn v...@lyx.org I only left one out: tex2lyx roundtrip: Ignore the info abour the lyx-version which created a .lyx file if comparing the content of two lyx-files. This is no longer needed as we have fixed #7951. These

Re: 2.1 release progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > I'm still around, but I can't cope with preparing the release and to keep > track of all latest patches and bug fixes that might want to get in. Then please ask for help, i.e. let somebody filter them for you. > The release notes and announce are updates. I will

Re: 2.1 release progress

Am Samstag, 13. Juli 2013 um 23:03:45, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn > > I only left one out: "tex2lyx roundtrip: Ignore the info abour the > > lyx-version which created a .lyx file if comparing the content of two > > lyx-files." This is no longer needed as we have fixed #7951.

2.1 release progress

Dear all, I must admit that I am quite unhappy with the current situation. While I am pretty sure that there are good reasons why Vincent cannot spend more time on LyX currently, we really need a beta release. I am thinking of simply merging the 2.1-staging branch and releasing that. Even if

Re: 2.1 release progress

Georg Baum wrote: Dear all, I must admit that I am quite unhappy with the current situation. While I am pretty sure that there are good reasons why Vincent cannot spend more time on LyX currently, we really need a beta release. I am thinking of simply merging the 2.1-staging branch and

Re: 2.1 release progress

Georg Baum wrote: I am thinking of simply merging the 2.1-staging branch and releasing that. I agree with merging and thus unfreezing master efectively now. 2.1 staging branch should never happen in the first place, it just shows that the freeze was pointless. For the second issue I have very

Re: 2.1 release progress

Pavel Sanda wrote: For the second issue I have very mixed feeling that anyone should just release and escape from feedback it causes. Actually, given Vincent's low time budget, I am not sure the situation will be any better if he does the beta. Jürgen

Re: 2.1 release progress

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: For the second issue I have very mixed feeling that anyone should just release and escape from feedback it causes. Actually, given Vincent's low time budget, I am not sure the situation will be any better if he does the beta. That's clear

Re: 2.1 release progress

Am 13.07.2013 um 11:02 schrieb Georg Baum georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de: Dear all, I must admit that I am quite unhappy with the current situation. While I am pretty sure that there are good reasons why Vincent cannot spend more time on LyX currently, we really need a beta release. I am

Re: 2.1 release progress

Op 13-7-2013 11:02, Georg Baum schreef: Dear all, I must admit that I am quite unhappy with the current situation. While I am pretty sure that there are good reasons why Vincent cannot spend more time on LyX currently, we really need a beta release. I am thinking of simply merging the

Re: 2.1 release progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I'm still around, but I can't cope with preparing the release and to keep track of all latest patches and bug fixes that might want to get in. Please consider at least the staging patches. We reviewed all of them, some of them are quite important. Jürgen

Re: 2.1 release progress

Op 13-7-2013 16:37, Jürgen Spitzmüller schreef: Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I'm still around, but I can't cope with preparing the release and to keep track of all latest patches and bug fixes that might want to get in. Please consider at least the staging patches. We reviewed all of them,

Re: 2.1 release progress

Am Samstag, 13. Juli 2013 um 22:47:14, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn v...@lyx.org Op 13-7-2013 16:37, Jürgen Spitzmüller schreef: Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I'm still around, but I can't cope with preparing the release and to keep track of all latest patches and bug fixes that might

Re: 2.1 release progress

Op 13-7-2013 23:01, Kornel Benko schreef: Am Samstag, 13. Juli 2013 um 22:47:14, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn v...@lyx.org Op 13-7-2013 16:37, Jürgen Spitzmüller schreef: Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I'm still around, but I can't cope with preparing the release and to keep

2.1 release progress

Dear all, I must admit that I am quite unhappy with the current situation. While I am pretty sure that there are good reasons why Vincent cannot spend more time on LyX currently, we really need a beta release. I am thinking of simply merging the 2.1-staging branch and releasing that. Even if

Re: 2.1 release progress

Georg Baum wrote: > Dear all, > > I must admit that I am quite unhappy with the current situation. While I am > pretty sure that there are good reasons why Vincent cannot spend more time > on LyX currently, we really need a beta release. I am thinking of simply > merging the 2.1-staging branch

Re: 2.1 release progress

Georg Baum wrote: > I am thinking of simply merging the 2.1-staging branch and releasing that. I agree with merging and thus unfreezing master efectively now. 2.1 staging branch should never happen in the first place, it just shows that the freeze was pointless. For the second issue I have very

Re: 2.1 release progress

Pavel Sanda wrote: > For the second issue I have very mixed feeling that anyone should just > release and escape from feedback it causes. Actually, given Vincent's low time budget, I am not sure the situation will be any better if he does the beta. Jürgen

Re: 2.1 release progress

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > For the second issue I have very mixed feeling that anyone should just > > release and escape from feedback it causes. > > Actually, given Vincent's low time budget, I am not sure the situation will > be > any better if he does the beta.

Re: 2.1 release progress

Am 13.07.2013 um 11:02 schrieb Georg Baum : > Dear all, > > I must admit that I am quite unhappy with the current situation. While I am > pretty sure that there are good reasons why Vincent cannot spend more time > on LyX currently, we really need a beta

Re: 2.1 release progress

Op 13-7-2013 11:02, Georg Baum schreef: > > Dear all, > > I must admit that I am quite unhappy with the current situation. While I am > pretty sure that there are good reasons why Vincent cannot spend more time > on LyX currently, we really need a beta release. I am thinking of simply > merging

Re: 2.1 release progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > I'm still around, but I can't cope with preparing the release and to keep > track of all latest patches and bug fixes that might want to get in. Please consider at least the staging patches. We reviewed all of them, some of them are quite important. Jürgen

Re: 2.1 release progress

Op 13-7-2013 16:37, Jürgen Spitzmüller schreef: Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: I'm still around, but I can't cope with preparing the release and to keep track of all latest patches and bug fixes that might want to get in. Please consider at least the staging patches. We reviewed all of them,

Re: 2.1 release progress

Am Samstag, 13. Juli 2013 um 22:47:14, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn > Op 13-7-2013 16:37, Jürgen Spitzmüller schreef: > > Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >> I'm still around, but I can't cope with preparing the release and to keep > >> track of all latest patches and bug fixes

Re: 2.1 release progress

Op 13-7-2013 23:01, Kornel Benko schreef: Am Samstag, 13. Juli 2013 um 22:47:14, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn > Op 13-7-2013 16:37, Jürgen Spitzmüller schreef: > > Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >> I'm still around, but I can't cope with preparing the release and to keep

Re: Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Am Donnerstag, 29. März 2012 um 00:53:28, schrieb Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 21/03/2012 17:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the

Re: Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Am Donnerstag, 29. März 2012 um 00:53:28, schrieb Pavel Sanda > Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > On 21/03/2012 17:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >> Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : > >>> There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just > >>>

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote: Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 21/03/2012 17:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the commit to master

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Abdelrazak Younes wrote: >> On 21/03/2012 17:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >>> Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On 21/03/2012 17:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and push from there. But If I want to compile both the

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 21/03/2012 17:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and push from there. But If I

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On 21/03/2012 17:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and push from there. But If I want to compile both the

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > On 21/03/2012 17:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : >>> There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just >>> cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and >>> push from there.

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: | 1. Checkout full repo | git clone g...@git.lyx.org:lyx trunk | 2. Full mirror of branch as well, not through clone | cp -r trunk branch; cd branch No... (perhaps... it does not seem optimal, does not take advantage that things are on same fs f.ex.))

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Le 22/03/12 09:44, Pavel Sanda a écrit : It seems to me absurd that people who are not sure how to commit or even use ssh keys are adviced to read about git internals or play with git remote. Please, be polite with me! I may be an older person, but I know how to use ssh keys :) JMarc

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote: Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: | 1. Checkout full repo | git clone g...@git.lyx.org:lyx trunk | 2. Full mirror of branch as well, not through clone | cp -r trunk branch; cd branch No... (perhaps... it does not

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 22/03/12 09:44, Pavel Sanda a écrit : It seems to me absurd that people who are not sure how to commit or even use ssh keys are adviced to read about git internals or play with git remote. Please, be polite with me! I may be an older person, but I know how to

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: > | 1. Checkout full repo > | git clone g...@git.lyx.org:lyx trunk > | 2. Full mirror of branch as well, not through clone > | cp -r trunk branch; cd branch > > No... > (perhaps... it does not seem optimal, does not take advantage that > things are on same fs

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Le 22/03/12 09:44, Pavel Sanda a écrit : It seems to me absurd that people who are not sure how to commit or even use ssh keys are adviced to read about git internals or play with git remote. Please, be polite with me! I may be an older person, but I know how to use ssh keys :) JMarc

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: > > | 1. Checkout full repo > > | git clone g...@git.lyx.org:lyx trunk > > | 2. Full mirror of branch as well, not through clone > > | cp -r trunk branch; cd branch > > > > No... > >

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 22/03/12 09:44, Pavel Sanda a écrit : >> It seems to me absurd that people who are not sure how to commit or >> even use ssh keys are adviced to read about git internals or play >> with git remote. > > Please, be polite with me! I may be an older person, but I know

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Le 12/03/2012 19:56, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : If you want a tree for both 2.0.x and 2.1.0svn, you can do the following: Assume you have a git clone in home/lyx, you can clone this with git clone -s -b 2.0.x home/lyx home/lyx20x This will clone your repo, but it will reuse the objects.

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Op 21-3-2012 15:51, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schreef: Le 12/03/2012 19:56, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : If you want a tree for both 2.0.x and 2.1.0svn, you can do the following: Assume you have a git clone in home/lyx, you can clone this with git clone -s -b 2.0.x home/lyx home/lyx20x This

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

There has to be a simple way to commit a patch to branch (please tell me there is!). I forgot to mention: Ideally, if we do it the git-way completely, you would only have to commit a patch to the 2.0.x branch. Later, the 2.0.x will automatically be merged into the master. This can be

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Le 21/03/2012 16:56, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There has to be a simple way to commit a patch to branch (please tell me there is!). I forgot to mention: Ideally, if we do it the git-way completely, you would only have to commit a patch to the 2.0.x branch. Later, the 2.0.x will

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and push from there. But If I want to compile both the master and the branch without doing a full rebuild

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Now you can push your branch to lyx: $ git push lyx 2.0.x How come I have to specify lyx 2.0.x. Isn't it possible to setup the branch so that git push will do the right thing? git push will by default push to the remote which is tracked by the current branch. If the current branch does

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and push from there. But If I want to compile both the master and the branch

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Il 21/03/2012 16:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes ha scritto: Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and push from there. But If I want to compile both

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn v...@lyx.org writes: There has to be a simple way to commit a patch to branch (please tell me there is!). | I forgot to mention: Ideally, if we do it the git-way completely, you | would only have to commit a patch to the 2.0.x branch. Later, the | 2.0.x will

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org writes: | Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and push from there. But If I want to

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Le 12/03/2012 19:56, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : If you want a tree for both 2.0.x and 2.1.0svn, you can do the following: Assume you have a git clone in /lyx, you can clone this with git clone -s -b 2.0.x /lyx /lyx20x This will clone your repo, but it will reuse the objects. This means

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Op 21-3-2012 15:51, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schreef: Le 12/03/2012 19:56, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : If you want a tree for both 2.0.x and 2.1.0svn, you can do the following: Assume you have a git clone in /lyx, you can clone this with git clone -s -b 2.0.x /lyx /lyx20x This will clone

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

There has to be a simple way to commit a patch to branch (please tell me there is!). I forgot to mention: Ideally, if we do it the git-way completely, you would only have to commit a patch to the 2.0.x branch. Later, the 2.0.x will automatically be merged into the master. This can be

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Le 21/03/2012 16:56, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There has to be a simple way to commit a patch to branch (please tell me there is!). I forgot to mention: Ideally, if we do it the git-way completely, you would only have to commit a patch to the 2.0.x branch. Later, the 2.0.x will

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and push from there. But If I want to compile both the master and the branch without doing a full rebuild

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Now you can push your branch to "lyx": $ git push lyx 2.0.x How come I have to specify "lyx 2.0.x". Isn't it possible to setup the branch so that "git push" will do the right thing? "git push" will by default push to the remote which is tracked by the current branch. If the current

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : >> There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just >> cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and >> push from there. > > But If I want to compile both the master and the

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Il 21/03/2012 16:44, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes ha scritto: Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and push from there. But If I want to compile both

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn writes: >>> There has to be a simple way to commit a patch to branch (please >>> tell me there is!). >> > | I forgot to mention: Ideally, if we do it the git-way completely, you | would only have to commit a patch to the 2.0.x branch. Later, the | 2.0.x will

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Pavel Sanda writes: | Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> Le 21/03/2012 16:14, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : >>> There is also a 2.0.x branch in your first clone, so you can just >>> cherry-pick the commit to master directly onto this 2.0.x branch, and >>> push from there. >> >> But

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On 03/14/2012 07:13 PM, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijnv...@lyx.org writes: | How can you make your repo public ? (without the need of specifying | all devs in the setperms) The special user @all, gives every one with ssh keys access. daemon enables anon access through

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Richard Heck rgh...@comcast.net writes: | On 03/14/2012 07:13 PM, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijnv...@lyx.org writes: | How can you make your repo public ? (without the need of specifying | all devs in the setperms) The special user @all, gives every one with ssh keys

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On 03/14/2012 07:13 PM, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijn writes: | How can you make your repo public ? (without the need of specifying | all devs in the setperms) The special user "@all", gives every one with ssh keys access. "daemon" enables anon access through

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Richard Heck writes: | On 03/14/2012 07:13 PM, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> Vincent van Ravesteijn writes: >> >> | How can you make your repo public ? (without the need of specifying >> | all devs in the setperms) >> >> The special user "@all", gives every one

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Le 12/03/2012 19:56, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : If you want a tree for both 2.0.x and 2.1.0svn, you can do the following: Assume you have a git clone in home/lyx, you can clone this with git clone -s -b 2.0.x home/lyx home/lyx20x This will clone your repo, but it will reuse the objects.

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Op 14-3-2012 14:59, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schreef: Le 12/03/2012 19:56, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : If you want a tree for both 2.0.x and 2.1.0svn, you can do the following: Assume you have a git clone in home/lyx, you can clone this with git clone -s -b 2.0.x home/lyx home/lyx20x This

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

| How can I assign rewrite or forced updates right to me for my own clone ? You can't. But that you can't is a misconfiguration on my side. The creator of that clone should have all rights. I'll fix this. Thanks, it's ok now. You can give basic write and read access to others, but no

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn v...@lyx.org writes: | How can I assign rewrite or forced updates right to me for my own clone ? You can't. But that you can't is a misconfiguration on my side. The creator of that clone should have all rights. I'll fix this. | Thanks, it's ok now. You can give

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Le 12/03/2012 19:56, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : If you want a tree for both 2.0.x and 2.1.0svn, you can do the following: Assume you have a git clone in /lyx, you can clone this with git clone -s -b 2.0.x /lyx /lyx20x This will clone your repo, but it will reuse the objects. This means

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Op 14-3-2012 14:59, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schreef: Le 12/03/2012 19:56, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : If you want a tree for both 2.0.x and 2.1.0svn, you can do the following: Assume you have a git clone in /lyx, you can clone this with git clone -s -b 2.0.x /lyx /lyx20x This will clone

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

| How can I assign rewrite or forced updates right to me for my own clone ? You can't. But that you can't is a misconfiguration on my side. The creator of that clone should have all rights. I'll fix this. Thanks, it's ok now. You can give basic write and read access to others, but no

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn writes: >> | How can I assign rewrite or forced updates right to me for my own clone ? >> >> You can't. But that you can't is a misconfiguration on my side. The >> creator of that clone should have all rights. >> >> I'll fix this. > | Thanks, it's ok now. >

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Am 12.03.2012 um 19:56 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: Op 11-3-2012 22:43, Richard Heck schreef: On 03/11/2012 05:37 PM, Richard Heck wrote: On 03/11/2012 12:59 PM, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | | 5. Enable the new lyx-devel git repo at

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

First, you have to do git checkout 2.0.x This will create the branch from the upstream branch. Vincent Op 13 mrt. 2012 07:26 schreef Stephan Witt st.w...@gmx.net het volgende: Am 12.03.2012 um 19:56 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: Op 11-3-2012 22:43, Richard Heck schreef: On 03/11/2012

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

| After that I will gradually make the new repo more and more accessiable: | - add to gitweb added, viewable at http://git.lyx.org/ | - add to daemon (enable + add) added, anon access to close with git clone git://git.lyx.org/lyx is now enabled. How can I assign rewrite or forced updates

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn v...@lyx.org writes: | After that I will gradually make the new repo more and more accessiable: | - add to gitweb added, viewable at http://git.lyx.org/ | - add to daemon (enable + add) added, anon access to close with git clone git://git.lyx.org/lyx is now

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Am 12.03.2012 um 19:56 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: > Op 11-3-2012 22:43, Richard Heck schreef: >> On 03/11/2012 05:37 PM, Richard Heck wrote: >>> On 03/11/2012 12:59 PM, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | | 5. Enable the new lyx-devel

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

First, you have to do git checkout 2.0.x This will create the branch from the upstream branch. Vincent Op 13 mrt. 2012 07:26 schreef "Stephan Witt" het volgende: > > Am 12.03.2012 um 19:56 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: > > > Op 11-3-2012 22:43, Richard Heck schreef: > >> On

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >