+0200
Handle version numbers like 2.0.5dev in LYX_CHECK_VERSION
Richard, to branch? Without this the current branch version is not
understood as development (only svn is tested).
JMarc
diff --git a/config/lyxinclude.m4 b/config/lyxinclude.m4
index ed12f3d..d915d5c 100644
--- a/config
lasgout...@lyx.org
Date: Wed Jul 4 12:18:15 2012 +0200
Handle version numbers like 2.0.5dev in LYX_CHECK_VERSION
Richard, to branch? Without this the current branch version is not
understood as development (only svn is tested).
Yes, thanks.
Richard
JMarc
diff --git a/config
Le 04/07/2012 16:37, Richard Heck a écrit :
commit 4471e65fa19135652874a9fde948c7d6dd54c261
Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes lasgout...@lyx.org
Date: Wed Jul 4 12:18:15 2012 +0200
Handle version numbers like 2.0.5dev in LYX_CHECK_VERSION
Richard, to branch? Without this the current branch
5 2012 +0200
Handle version numbers like 2.0.5dev in LYX_CHECK_VERSION
Richard, to branch? Without this the current branch version is not
understood as development (only svn is tested).
JMarc
diff --git a/config/lyxinclude.m4 b/config/lyxinclude.m4
index ed12f3d..d915d5c 100644
--- a/
<lasgout...@lyx.org>
Date: Wed Jul 4 12:18:15 2012 +0200
Handle version numbers like 2.0.5dev in LYX_CHECK_VERSION
Richard, to branch? Without this the current branch version is not
understood as development (only svn is tested).
Yes, thanks.
Richard
JMarc
diff --git a/
Le 04/07/2012 16:37, Richard Heck a écrit :
commit 4471e65fa19135652874a9fde948c7d6dd54c261
Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <lasgout...@lyx.org>
Date: Wed Jul 4 12:18:15 2012 +0200
Handle version numbers like 2.0.5dev in LYX_CHECK_VERSION
Richard, to branch? Without this the c
On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time flies... anyway, this is now included in the page list.
I'm still slightly worried it's a bit to technical for normal users to
read. Anyway, I'll ask on the user's list for opinions, but first I'd like
for someone to verify that the
On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Time flies... anyway, this is now included in the page list.
>
> I'm still slightly worried it's a bit to technical for normal users to
> read. Anyway, I'll ask on the user's list for opinions, but first I'd like
> for someone to verify
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Jose' Matos wrote:
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXVersionNumbers
If I don't hear any objections tomorrow I'll add it to the list of pages
so that it shows up more prominently.
Time flies... anyway, this is now included in
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Jose' Matos wrote:
>
> > > http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXVersionNumbers
> If I don't hear any objections tomorrow I'll add it to the list of pages
> so that it shows up more prominently.
Time flies... anyway, this is now
I read a post by Jose' in the user's list and started thinking about
version numbers used by LyX. Eventually I tried explaining it to
myself and wrote it down here:
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXVersionNumbers
I've pasted the text below for convenience. Is the text correct? What
have I
On Saturday 08 April 2006 14:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read a post by Jose' in the user's list and started thinking about
version numbers used by LyX. Eventually I tried explaining it to
myself and wrote it down here:
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXVersionNumbers
I've pasted the text
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Jose' Matos wrote:
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXVersionNumbers
Should I let it stay on the users' wiki, should it be moved to the
developers' wiki or simply removed (i.e. is it redundant)?
I like, but then I am suspect (for some reason that I have conveniently
I read a post by Jose' in the user's list and started thinking about
version numbers used by LyX. Eventually I tried explaining it to
myself and wrote it down here:
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXVersionNumbers
I've pasted the text below for convenience. Is the text correct? What
have I
On Saturday 08 April 2006 14:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I read a post by Jose' in the user's list and started thinking about
> version numbers used by LyX. Eventually I tried explaining it to
> myself and wrote it down here:
>
> http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXVersionNumbers
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Jose' Matos wrote:
> > http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXVersionNumbers
> > Should I let it stay on the users' wiki, should it be moved to the
> > developers' wiki or simply removed (i.e. is it redundant)?
>
> I like, but then I am suspect (for some reason that I have
I really don't think we have to follow the linux kernel numbering system.
There are a gazillion packages out there, each of which has its own system.
I think as long as the website docs stay consistent, we can have whatever
scheme we would like. (The only important thing, IMO, is the 1.0 label,
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 09:49:50AM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
I really don't think we have to follow the linux kernel numbering system.
There are a gazillion packages out there, each of which has its own system.
I think as long as the website docs stay consistent, we can have whatever
scheme
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| If it will make people happier to have each release go from 1.1 to 1.2
| and then to make 1.1.y instead of 1.1fixy, I suppose it won't hurt anybody.
|
|
| Personally I mildly feel that that would be an improvement. But not
| important.
I think this
On 22 Jun 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
I think this is what we will do from 1.1.7, i.e. 1.1.7 will be called 1.2.0
for 1.1.6 we stay with current scheme.
This means that I will change the cvs version to 1.2.0cvs when 1.1.6
is released.
1.2.0cvs development
1.2.x stable + fixes.
I really don't think we have to follow the linux kernel numbering system.
There are a gazillion packages out there, each of which has its own system.
I think as long as the website & docs stay consistent, we can have whatever
scheme we would like. (The only important thing, IMO, is the 1.0 label,
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 09:49:50AM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
> I really don't think we have to follow the linux kernel numbering system.
> There are a gazillion packages out there, each of which has its own system.
> I think as long as the website & docs stay consistent, we can have whatever
>
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > If it will make people happier to have each release go from 1.1 to 1.2
| > and then to make 1.1.y instead of 1.1fixy, I suppose it won't hurt anybody.
| >
|
| Personally I mildly feel that that would be an improvement. But not
| important.
I think
On 22 Jun 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> I think this is what we will do from 1.1.7, i.e. 1.1.7 will be called 1.2.0
> for 1.1.6 we stay with current scheme.
>
> This means that I will change the cvs version to 1.2.0cvs when 1.1.6
> is released.
>
> 1.2.0cvs development
> 1.2.x stable +
24 matches
Mail list logo
