we have to be very careful with InsetListings! If we add a half-baked
solution, people will be nagging all the time, i.e., we will be flooded
by countless bug reports ("Listing does not support this, Listing does
not support that").
I am using a list of string method to handle all listings optio
Bo Peng schrieb:
Beta 3: Friday, May 11
RC1: Friday, May 25
Final : Friday, June 1 (unless a new critical bug appear)
No file format changes and new features after beta 3 - only bug fixing!
I see that I am given one week to add InsetListings ...
Bo,
we have to be very careful with Inse
José Matos schrieb:
On Thursday 03 May 2007 17:51:25 Michael Gerz wrote:
Beta 3: Friday, May 11
RC1: Friday, May 25
Final : Friday, June 1 (unless a new critical bug appear)
No file format changes and new features after beta 3 - only bug fixing!
Those two conditions are not ne
José Matos schrieb:
On Thursday 03 May 2007 19:40:06 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good points. Does this mean you've approved the schedule above?
The calendar is optimistic, and I am not know for being pessimistic. ;-)
You should, if possible, try to have some weekly list of the most
On Thursday 03 May 2007 19:40:06 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Good points. Does this mean you've approved the schedule above?
The calendar is optimistic, and I am not know for being pessimistic. ;-)
You should, if possible, try to have some weekly list of the most critical
bugs. Think in somet
On Thu, 3 May 2007, José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 03 May 2007 17:51:25 Michael Gerz wrote:
Beta 3: Friday, May 11
RC1: Friday, May 25
Final : Friday, June 1 (unless a new critical bug appear)
No file format changes and new features after beta 3 - only bug fixing!
Those two conditions
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Bo Peng wrote:
Beta 3: Friday, May 11
RC1: Friday, May 25
Final : Friday, June 1 (unless a new critical bug appear)
No file format changes and new features after beta 3 - only bug fixing!
I see that I am given one week to add InsetListings ...
Isn't that enough
On Thursday 03 May 2007 17:51:25 Michael Gerz wrote:
>
> Beta 3: Friday, May 11
> RC1: Friday, May 25
> Final : Friday, June 1 (unless a new critical bug appear)
>
> No file format changes and new features after beta 3 - only bug fixing!
Those two conditions are not necessarily both satisf
Beta 3: Friday, May 11
RC1: Friday, May 25
Final : Friday, June 1 (unless a new critical bug appear)
No file format changes and new features after beta 3 - only bug fixing!
I see that I am given one week to add InsetListings ...
Bo
Abdelrazak Younes schrieb:
José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 03 May 2007 12:54:28 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that's a good idea as we expect the file format to change
between the rc and the stable release.
I am sorry, I can't parse this sentence. :-)
IMO, it is all a matter of ti
On Thu, 3 May 2007, José Matos wrote:
I am sorry, I can't parse this sentence. :-)
Here's what I actually meant:
I don't think that's a good idea, as we _would_then_ expect the
file format to change between the rc and the stable release.
So I think a RC would be bad when we
You know of course that you have the power to implement everything you
want locally don't you? :-)
But another guy in my group will collaborate with me on this document
and it would be easier for him if it is in lyx.1.5.0.
Will this feature involves a format change? If yes, how much time do yo
> I sincerely hope that 1.5.0 will be out in less than a month. IMHO we
> should set a fixed data for 1.5.0. First of June seems good to me. Bug
> that won't be fixed within a month won't be fixed either in one year.
+1
José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 03 May 2007 12:54:28 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that's a good idea as we expect the file format to change
between the rc and the stable release.
I am sorry, I can't parse this sentence. :-)
IMO, it is all a matter of timings, if we release in a we
On Thursday 03 May 2007 12:54:28 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't think that's a good idea as we expect the file format to change
> between the rc and the stable release.
I am sorry, I can't parse this sentence. :-)
IMO, it is all a matter of timings, if we release in a week it makes sense
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Leuven, E. wrote:
> Yes, IMO another beta to shaken out any possible bugs due to the file
> name changes and then we start with the release candidate cycle.
> What do others think?
i would put out rc1
I did not dare proposing it ;-)
I don'
Leuven, E. wrote:
Yes, IMO another beta to shaken out any possible bugs due to the file
name changes and then we start with the release candidate cycle.
What do others think?
i would put out rc1
I did not dare proposing it ;-)
Abdel.
> Yes, IMO another beta to shaken out any possible bugs due to the file
> name changes and then we start with the release candidate cycle.
> What do others think?
i would put out rc1
On Thu, 3 May 2007, José Matos wrote:
FWIW this is a direct reference to a Ghandi quote:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mohandas_Gandhi
Q: "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
A: "I think it would be a good idea!"
Brilliant...
On a more serious note there is an article in LWN today a
José Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 21:44:37 Georg Baum wrote:
Then I _really_ dislike some recent changes in LyX development. I don't
think I need to reiterate all of them, one example can be seen in my other
mail of today.
Are you implying that we have a development model? ;-)
FW
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 21:44:37 Georg Baum wrote:
> Then I _really_ dislike some recent changes in LyX development. I don't
> think I need to reiterate all of them, one example can be seen in my other
> mail of today.
Are you implying that we have a development model? ;-)
FWIW this is a dir
José Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 22:17:54 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also wondered about this?
What's the plan for getting to 1.5.0? Another beta?
Yes, IMO another beta to shaken out any possible bugs due to the file name
changes and then we start with the release candidate cycl
On Thursday 03 May 2007 07:59:18 Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Will this feature involves a format change? If yes, how much time do you
> need in order to implement the very minimal change to support it? If no,
> then I suggest that you develop this feature and use it locally. We will
> then integrate
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 21:44:37 Georg Baum wrote:
>
> To be honest I feel coaxed :-) But I also think that I need to give yet
> another explanation why I stopped contributing, because the possible
> reason given above is not entirely correct. First I _really_ have very
> little spare time current
On Thu, 3 May 2007, José Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 22:17:54 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also wondered about this?
What's the plan for getting to 1.5.0? Another beta?
Yes, IMO another beta to shaken out any possible bugs due to the file
name changes and then we start with the re
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 22:17:54 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I also wondered about this?
>
> What's the plan for getting to 1.5.0? Another beta?
Yes, IMO another beta to shaken out any possible bugs due to the file name
changes and then we start with the release candidate cycle.
What do oth
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Koji" == Koji Yokota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Ah, I misread this report. I guess iconv is the real
Abdelrazak> problem here.
Jean-Marc> Yes there seems to be a problem with the autoconf test (a
Jean-Marc> missing const).
Could I get to see the whole
Koji Yokota wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Koji, could you try to build LyX with scons in order to see if this is
an autotools problem?
Abdel,
Seemingly, scons also fails to find libiconv:
Bo, you might want to improve scons FreeBSD support. iconv is apparently
properly detected by autotoo
> "Koji" == Koji Yokota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Ah, I misread this report. I guess iconv is the real
Abdelrazak> problem here.
>>
Jean-Marc> Yes there seems to be a problem with the autoconf test (a
Jean-Marc> missing const).
>> Could I get to see the whole config.log? I am no
Georg Baum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2007 18:42 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
I guess Georg is facing a dilemma, maybe it's the same as the one I am
facing: on one hand I'd like to continue to develop small things and do
some bug corrections, things that don't require too much time. On the
othe
Bo Peng wrote:
> Another one is too little focus on 1.5.0 release. For example,
restarting
> the work on insetlisting now is ridicolous.
I have never been a model developer in this regard because I had never
'focused' on 1.5.0 due to my very limited time.
OK, I'll try to give you some focus
> Another one is too little focus on 1.5.0 release. For example, restarting
> the work on insetlisting now is ridicolous.
I have never been a model developer in this regard because I had never
'focused' on 1.5.0 due to my very limited time. This time, I *really*
need this feature for my own work
Georg Baum wrote:
> Another one is too little focus on 1.5.0 release. For example, restarting
> the work on insetlisting now is ridicolous. Sorry Bo and José, but that is
> how I see it, and believe me, this is something I have been wanting for a
> long time. I know that implementing that prope
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Georg Baum wrote:
Another one is too little focus on 1.5.0 release. For example, restarting
the work on insetlisting now is ridicolous.
I also wondered about this?
What's the plan for getting to 1.5.0? Another beta?
/Christian
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44
Am Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2007 18:42 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> I guess Georg is facing a dilemma, maybe it's the same as the one I am
> facing: on one hand I'd like to continue to develop small things and do
> some bug corrections, things that don't require too much time. On the
> other hand, thos
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Abdelrazak> For a change, I am even willing to shut up and to listen
> Abdelrazak> to your suggestion and guidance if you decide to help us a
> Abdelrazak> bit more.
> Unfortunately, I canno
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Koji, could you try to build LyX with scons in order to see if this is
an autotools problem?
Abdel,
Seemingly, scons also fails to find libiconv:
> cd development/scons/
> scons frontend=qt4 qt_dir=/usr/local
extra_inc_path=/usr/local/include -j3 lyx
scons: Reading S
> "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Koji Yokota wrote:
>>> I don't know whether libiconv is related to this matter, but I
>>> attach the related part of configure.log to libiconv.
Abd
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak> For a change, I am even willing to shut up and to listen
Abdelrazak> to your suggestion and guidance if you decide to help us a
Abdelrazak> bit more.
Unfortunately, I cannot blame Georg for resenting being told to shut
up (this is
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak> For a change, I am even willing to shut up and to listen
Abdelrazak> to your suggestion and guidance if you decide to help us a
Abdelrazak> bit more.
Unfortunately, I cannot blame Georg for resenting being told to shut
up (this is not what happened, I am
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Abdelrazak> Also, please open an entry in bugzilla.lyx.org and put the
Abdelrazak> example file in there too.
>> Fro
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Koji Yokota wrote:
>> I don't know whether libiconv is related to this matter, but I
>> attach the related part of configure.log to libiconv.
Abdelrazak> Ah, I misread this report. I guess iconv is the real
Abdelrazak
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Also, please open an entry in bugzilla.lyx.org and put the
Abdelrazak> example file in there too.
From what I read in the report there is no file involved.
Yep, iconv is not properly configu
Koji Yokota wrote:
> I don't know whether libiconv is related to this matter, but I attach
> the related part of configure.log to libiconv.
Ah, I misread this report. I guess iconv is the real problem here.
> --- configure.log ---
> configure:24874: checking for iconv
> configure:24901: g++41 -
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> Also, please open an entry in bugzilla.lyx.org and put the
Abdelrazak> example file in there too.
>From what I read in the report there is no file involved.
Abdelrazak> * I am serious, we _really_ need you.
Agreed.
Koji Yokota wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm investigating in this problem and it seems the address of outbuf
> changes before and after of the call of
>
> iconv((pimpl_->cd, &inbuf, &inbytesleft, &outbuf, &outbytesleft);
[...]
> Is there any problems in relation to boost::scoped_ptr?
I don't think so.
> I
Hi,
I'm investigating in this problem and it seems the address of outbuf
changes before and after of the call of
iconv((pimpl_->cd, &inbuf, &inbytesleft, &outbuf, &outbytesleft);
in IconvProcessor::convert in unicode.C. Before iconv is called, it is
> lyx::IconvProcessor::convert (
> this=0x89d
Hi,
I successfully compiled LyX-1.5.0.beta2 on FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE with
gcc-4.1, however it dumps core when (seemingly) it handles strings of
filename etc. Error message is as follows:
>terminate called after throwing an instance of
'boost::io::bad_format_string'
> what(): boost::bad_format_strin
101 - 148 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
