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

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 latte

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. Jü

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 channel (especially with

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 > > JMarc >

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 cha

Sort Debug Options in Progress Pane

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 --- a/src/fronte

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

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 comparing the content of

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. > > These are

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 r

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 > >> track o

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 that might want t

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, som

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 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

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 release. I am thinking of simply > merg

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

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

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 m

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

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 th

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 > >>> cherry-pick the com

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 commit to master

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

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 mast

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

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... > > (perhaps... it does not s

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

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.

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 If I want to co

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 automatically b

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 the

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

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

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 ev

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 autom

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 done,

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 yo

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 t

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 with ssh keys access. "daemon" >>

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 git://..., "gi

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. > >> You can give

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 rewin

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 yo

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 t

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn 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 >>

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 update

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 03/11/2012 05:37

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

Op 12-3-2012 20:17, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: Vincent van Ravesteijn writes: | Op 12-3-2012 0:44, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: - fork the lyx repo: $ ssh g...@git.lyx.org fork lyx developers/larsbj/lyx | My personal repo does not appear in gitweb. Is it supposed to ? It

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn writes: | 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 git.lyx.org.

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn writes: | Op 12-3-2012 0:44, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: >>- fork the lyx repo: >> $ ssh g...@git.lyx.org fork lyx developers/larsbj/lyx > | My personal repo does not appear in gitweb. Is it supposed to ? It will only appear there if you give "gitweb" re

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Op 12-3-2012 0:44, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: - fork the lyx repo: $ ssh g...@git.lyx.org fork lyx developers/larsbj/lyx My personal repo does not appear in gitweb. Is it supposed to ? Vincent

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Op 12-3-2012 18:15, Rob Oakes schreef: On Mar 12, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: The main repo would be automatically synchronized (only the 2.0 and 2.1 branches); either via a git hook or a cron script at server side. The cron idea is better if only we had some automatic regressio

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

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 git.lyx.org. The new repo has been made available to developers,

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On Mar 12, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > The main repo would be automatically synchronized (only the 2.0 and > 2.1 branches); either via a git hook or a cron script at server side. > The cron idea is better if only we had some automatic regression > testing in place. Then only tho

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > Op 12-3-2012 0:44, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: First of all, thank you for this work Lars, this is a truly great achievement :-) >> If we want to introduce a staging repo and can also be done, but we >> shouldn't change to much at

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Op 12-3-2012 0:44, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | | -> write access for developers (this might be moved up in the queue) | I'll enable write access now, but with some limitations: you are not | al

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn writes: | Op 5-3-2012 1:03, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: >> I have added some more gitolite functionality. >> (only viewable for the people that has sent me their ssh public key.) >> >> ssh g...@git.lyx.org help >> >> You will not be able to fork anything yet, but as you ca

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: > | | -> write access for developers (this might be moved up in the queue) > | I'll enable write access now, but with some limitations: you are not | allowed to create new branches nor delete them. A

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | -> write access for developers (this might be moved up in the queue) I'll enable write access now, but with some limitations: you are not allowed to create new branches nor delete them. Also history rewind is not allowed. Also: try to avoid poin

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | -> add to trac Trac also made available now. Might require some more work. -- Lgb

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Julien Rioux writes: | On 11/03/2012 12:59 PM, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: >> >> | | 5. Enable the new lyx-devel git repo at git.lyx.org. >> >> The new repo has been made available to developers, and the git >> installation has opend up for develo

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On 11/03/2012 12:59 PM, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | | 5. Enable the new lyx-devel git repo at git.lyx.org. The new repo has been made available to developers, and the git installation has opend up for developers to create their own repos and fork

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

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 git.lyx.org. The new repo has been made available to developers, and the git installation has opend up for

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

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 git.lyx.org. The new repo has been made available to developers, and the git installation has opend up for developers to create their own repos and fork

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | | 5. Enable the new lyx-devel git repo at git.lyx.org. > | 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

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | | 5. Enable the new lyx-devel git repo at git.lyx.org. The new repo has been made available to developers, and the git installation has opend up for developers to create their own repos and forks. Developers that have registered their public keys

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

As of now the subversion repo is read-only. (the lyx-devel part of it.) I'm waiting to see the lyx repo to appear on gitolite:).. Vincent

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | Lars Gullik Bjønnes writes: > | | 3. Cleanup and verify the svn->git conversion that I already have in place. | | - Unless I have to redo anything this will be quite easy. >> | | 4. Make the subversion repo read-only > | I am pretty much rea

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Lars Gullik Bjønnes writes: | 3. Cleanup and verify the svn->git conversion that I already have in place. | - Unless I have to redo anything this will be quite easy. > | 4. Make the subversion repo read-only I am pretty much ready to do this now. >From the moment I turn off the svn repo (r

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Lars Gullik Bjønnes writes: | 2. See if we can get the trac connection setup. | - Should just be config, and a another hook to get updates to | the repo signaled to trac. I have added the git testing repo to trac. It seems to work fine. I have not added any trac specific hooks, but I'll to

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Richard Heck writes: | On 03/08/2012 04:47 AM, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> Lars Gullik Bjønnes writes: >> >> | I have added some more gitolite functionality. >> | (only viewable for the people that has sent me their ssh public key.) >> | ssh g...@git.lyx.org help >> | You will not be able to f

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

This is now in place. I will have to test it a bit more though, I think it is ok for us, but I will add a status blurb at bottom of mail with something similar to "git diff --stat" content. Is it possible to have the commit itself in the emails, as we do now? Via, e.g., git diff HEAD^? Richar

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

On 03/08/2012 04:47 AM, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Lars Gullik Bjønnes writes: | I have added some more gitolite functionality. | (only viewable for the people that has sent me their ssh public key.) | ssh g...@git.lyx.org help | You will not be able to fork anything yet, but as you can see at

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Lars Gullik Bjønnes writes: | I have added some more gitolite functionality. | (only viewable for the people that has sent me their ssh public key.) > | ssh g...@git.lyx.org help > | You will not be able to fork anything yet, but as you can see at > | http://git.lyx.org/ > | this is basically wha

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Vincent van Ravesteijn writes: | Op 5-3-2012 1:03, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: >> I have added some more gitolite functionality. >> (only viewable for the people that has sent me their ssh public key.) >> >> ssh g...@git.lyx.org help >> >> You will not be able to fork anything yet, but as you ca

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Op 5-3-2012 12:27, Vincent van Ravesteijn schreef: Op 5-3-2012 1:03, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: I have added some more gitolite functionality. (only viewable for the people that has sent me their ssh public key.) ssh g...@git.lyx.org help You will not be able to fork anything yet, but as you

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Op 5-3-2012 1:03, Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: I have added some more gitolite functionality. (only viewable for the people that has sent me their ssh public key.) ssh g...@git.lyx.org help You will not be able to fork anything yet, but as you can see at http://git.lyx.org/ Browsing the repo

Re: Updates to gitolite progress

Lars Gullik Bjønnes writes: | I created a git-us...@lyx.org group to have somewhere to send | git/gitolite specific information, that | group has been Bcc'ed on this mail. It seems that the Bcc'ing didn't work so well. meh.

Updates to gitolite progress

I have added some more gitolite functionality. (only viewable for the people that has sent me their ssh public key.) ssh g...@git.lyx.org help You will not be able to fork anything yet, but as you can see at http://git.lyx.org/ this is basically what it will look like. The plan forward is: 1.

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

rgheck wrote: > On 12/29/2009 02:22 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> After the reply to JMarc I also tought about a template solution. >> Attached a patch, but it's tested only with msvc. >> >> > Don't you only need the one specialization, if all the others are different? > > rh Making the operato

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >>> What's the code you try to get working? >> >> look at the Peter's patch in next message: >> +LyXErr & toStream(LyXErr & l, T t) >> >> but now instead of toStream... i would like to write it as operator<<. > > Write the operator<< template, and then declare each speci

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Le 29 déc. 09 à 21:15, Pavel Sanda a écrit : Andre Poenitz wrote: why we need is quite clear - there is xtimes the same code and we dont want to copy nad paste it. i dont like the macro solution but i failed to produce template which would be desirable for this. either my c++ skills are lac

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

On 12/29/2009 02:22 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: After the reply to JMarc I also tought about a template solution. Attached a patch, but it's tested only with msvc. Don't you only need the one specialization, if all the others are different? rh LyXErr& operator<<(LyXErr& l, void const *

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Andre Poenitz wrote: > > why we need is quite clear - there is xtimes the same code and we dont want > > to > > copy nad paste it. i dont like the macro solution but i failed to produce > > template which would be desirable for this. either my c++ skills are > > lacking or > > it is not possible

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 08:06:19PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > * use signal/slot > > * keep lyxerr where it is and subclass it with a version that handles debug > > window too. > > i tried to avoid this because i didn't want to pull any Q* headers into > support/debug. ... > > > > I do not re

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Pavel Sanda wrote: >> I do not really understand either why we need this STREAM_OPERATOR macro. > > why we need is quite clear - there is xtimes the same code and we dont want to > copy nad paste it. i dont like the macro solution but i failed to produce > template which would be desirable for thi

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Peter Kümmel wrote: > > Are you at the moment working on it? I've added the radio buttons. > > > > I've committed a ui for the debug levels, I've also committed your > debug patches. But we still need to fiddle a bit with the line endings. > But after the fight with designer I need a break ;) i

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> this patch does it (plus minus some eoln stuff for gui), but i'm not sure >> this >> kind of lyxerr tweak is acceptible. JMarc? > > The changes to lyxerr are IMO ugly, but I am not competent enough to > propose something else. > Possible solutions I would try are: >

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Am Dienstag, den 29.12.2009, 16:26 +0100 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: > Le 28 déc. 09 à 00:06, Pavel Sanda a écrit : > > i would like to get better online gui control over lyxerr output and > > its levels > > adjusting. firstly we need to imbibe message from lyxerr into

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Le 28 déc. 09 à 00:06, Pavel Sanda a écrit : i would like to get better online gui control over lyxerr output and its levels adjusting. firstly we need to imbibe message from lyxerr into progress debug pane. this patch does it (plus minus some eoln stuff for gui), but i'm not sure

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Peter Kümmel wrote: > > Are you at the moment working on it? I've added the radio buttons. > I've committed a ui for the debug levels, I've also committed your debug patches. But we still need to fiddle a bit with the line endings. But after the fight with designer I need a break ;) Peter

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Pavel Sanda wrote: > Peter Kümmel wrote: >> This is a good idea. We could make the current view a tab view, or add >> an new dialog which also provides some check boxes or radio buttons for >> the error levels. > > that was my idea - either checkboxes or small buttons. > >> +void GuiProgress::dol

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Peter Kümmel wrote: > This is a good idea. We could make the current view a tab view, or add > an new dialog which also provides some check boxes or radio buttons for > the error levels. that was my idea - either checkboxes or small buttons. > +void GuiProgress::dolyxerrFlush() > +{ > + app

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

Am Montag, den 28.12.2009, 00:06 +0100 schrieb Pavel Sanda: > hi, > > i would like to get better online gui control over lyxerr output and its > levels > adjusting. firstly we need to imbibe message from lyxerr into progress debug > pane. > This is a good idea. We could

Re: [Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

On 12/27/2009 06:06 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: hi, i would like to get better online gui control over lyxerr output and its levels adjusting. firstly we need to imbibe message from lyxerr into progress debug pane. this patch does it (plus minus some eoln stuff for gui), but i'm not sure this

[Patch] LyXErr into progress debug pane

hi, i would like to get better online gui control over lyxerr output and its levels adjusting. firstly we need to imbibe message from lyxerr into progress debug pane. this patch does it (plus minus some eoln stuff for gui), but i'm not sure this kind of lyxerr tweak is acceptible. JMarc?

  1   2   3   4   >