On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 05:56:56PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Now that you reached that point you might as well consider letting those
> | people decide what's being done that actually do any coding. At least if
> | there are clear majoritie
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Now that you reached that point you might as well consider letting those
| people decide what's being done that actually do any coding. At least if
| there are clear majorities and your only argument is 'I don't like it'.
Not quite true tough... is it?
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 01:12:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> You have ceased to be constructive a long long time ago.
As in 'You have ceased to have the same opinions as I'?
Or as in 'You have nowadays even stranger ideas on how to stall project
progress than I'?
> (As have I apparentl
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 01:12:03AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 05:59:14PM +0100, Jose' Matos wrote:
> | > On Friday 23 June 2006 17:43, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> | > > No. But xforms could be removed right away.
> | >
>
John Spray wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:31 +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
The problem as I see it is that people making changes to the core don't
want to have to make corresponding changes to three frontends -- it ties
their hands. They're right. I think it's a real drag. It's preven
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:31 +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I think the gtk frontend should only be kept if it manages to become
> fully functional. John S., do you still have plans for LyX? Is there
> hope?
When I started working on lyx-gtk, it was dead. If nothing had been in
CVS at all,
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:31:59AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> As Lars pointed out, the xforms frontend is really faster than the qt
> ones. I the qt wizards manage to make their frontends less sluggish
> (like how it was in 1.3), it would be a good reason to drop xforms.
Also note that
> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> What does it mean? Full-functioning frontends or some source
Michael> code available? Is it realistic that the gtk frontend will be
Michael> ready for 1.5 given the limited man power?
I think the gtk frontend should only be kept
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Lars> The longer term vision is that xforms and qt3 goes away, but
Lars> that qt4 and gtk stays.
Jean-Marc> Agreed (provided that we do have people who are dedicated
Jean-Marc> to gtk).
More precisely, I can see:
1.5: qt3, qt4, gtk and maybe xforms
1.6: qt4, gtk a
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
5) Some new code needs to be ported from the qt3 frontend, look at the
svn log:
5-a) I remember the QNote thing from Martin, he even sent a preliminar
patch for qt4 but I did not have the time to look at it yet.
5-b) I remember some work from Georg and Enrico about some
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Yes I forgot to add that to the list, thanks for recalling me. Up
> | until now the preferred method is to #undef the macro at the top of
> | the cpp file. When we are sure that there is no more need for that Qt3
> |
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Yes I forgot to add that to the list, thanks for recalling me. Up
| until now the preferred method is to #undef the macro at the top of
| the cpp file. When we are sure that there is no more need for that Qt3
| compatibility layer, we can remove the
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| That's all I remember for now. Feel free to pick up something in this
| list ;-)
I was wondering about the QT3_SUPPORT macro, what does it mean?
When defined, some of the Qt4 classes contain Qt3 compatibility member
m
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| That's all I remember for now. Feel free to pick up something in this
| list ;-)
I was wondering about the QT3_SUPPORT macro, what does it mean? that
combablity stuff is in there? If should that be cleaned out as well?
--
Lgb
Peter Kümmel wrote:
The only thing I know is that I don't wanna code with qt3/gtk/xform.
Maybe this is my knock out as lyx developer, at least it limits the
changes that i can propose.
I don't want you to loose motivation so rest assured that there is still
plenty of things to do for Qt4 which
> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Maybe you are right. But it still does not look like the
Peter> toolbars of other qt4 apps.
This I do not know about, but I assume it is fixable.
Peter> The only thing I know is that I don't wanna code with
Peter> qt3/gtk/xform. Ma
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Peter> But why are there no free toolbars in the Qt4 frontend? It cost
> Peter> you nothing in a Qt only application, they are there by
> Peter> default.
>
> Probably because it was disabled on purpose:
>
> // allowing the toolbars to tear off is too easily don
> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> But why are there no free toolbars in the Qt4 frontend? It cost
Peter> you nothing in a Qt only application, they are there by
Peter> default.
Probably because it was disabled on purpose:
// allowing the toolbars to tear of
Michael Gerz wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
and the other frontends are not portable.
xforms no, gtk maybe...
We really have to reconsider (again) the frontend issue.
- Why do we still have xforms? It won't survive the unicode patch anyway.
=> Let's remove it! Now!
- Has gtk ever wor
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
and the other frontends are not portable.
xforms no, gtk maybe...
We really have to reconsider (again) the frontend issue.
- Why do we still have xforms? It won't survive the unicode patch anyway.
=> Let's remove it! Now!
- Has gtk ever worked reliably? (Estima
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 05:59:14PM +0100, Jose' Matos wrote:
| > On Friday 23 June 2006 17:43, Andre Poenitz wrote:
| > > No. But xforms could be removed right away.
| >
| > Is there any reason for it to here?
| > What is the reason for not removing
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 05:59:14PM +0100, Jose' Matos wrote:
> On Friday 23 June 2006 17:43, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > No. But xforms could be removed right away.
>
> Is there any reason for it to here?
> What is the reason for not removing it now?
>
> As a compromise I propose to mark it in
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:31:40PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> I have no idea why most people here think it is a good idea to
> support more than one frontend when there is one which fits all needs.
I am not in that camp (anymore).
Originally, having support for multiple frontends was a really g
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:12:32PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> | > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> | >> 1.6: qt4, gtk and maybe qt3.
> | >
> | > And qt5.
> |
> | And the old story goes on: lyx supports too much fr
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:52:56PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Not bad as theoretical exercises, but good for real world application?
LyX has been always a playground for theoretical exercises.
[Just stating a fact, not a judgment]
Andre'
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 07:06:49PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:33:03PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
> > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > | Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > > | > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > >
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:40:13PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> .. in part because it forces one to think how a features should be
> implemented. Not bad, IMO.
One could think about things without implementing it four times.
> Something that is more boring for me is being forced to update
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Peter" == Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
I have no idea why you think having just one frontend is some kind
of silver bullet.
Peter> Ever heard about "lowest common denominator"? When you use more
Peter> front ends you
Jose' Matos wrote:
On Friday 23 June 2006 17:43, Andre Poenitz wrote:
No. But xforms could be removed right away.
Is there any reason for it to here?
What is the reason for not removing it now?
As a compromise I propose to mark it in the same level as gtk, people don't
try to break it
On Friday 23 June 2006 17:43, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> No. But xforms could be removed right away.
Is there any reason for it to here?
What is the reason for not removing it now?
As a compromise I propose to mark it in the same level as gtk, people don't
try to break it on purpose, keep it w
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:33:03PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > | Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > | > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > | >> 1.6: qt4, gtk and maybe qt3.
> > | >
> > | > And qt5.
> > |
> > | And the ol
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Peter> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> I have no idea why you think having just one frontend is some kind
>>> of silver bullet.
>
> Peter> Ever heard about "lowest common denominator"? When you use more
> Pe
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 12:00:11PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> This is the responsibility of the system window manager. If this
> functionality was drawn into Qt it would restrict the freedom with
> which differing windowing/layout approaches are applied.
>
> This would be easy to implement, but
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 02:09:38PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Well... my point is that we cannot delete frontends just because it is
> easier to work with just one.
Guess what you do with apple trees.
> Do you really belive LyX is a driver for distros to use Qt4?
No. But xforms could be
> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> I have no idea why you think having just one frontend is some kind
>> of silver bullet.
Peter> Ever heard about "lowest common denominator"? When you use more
Peter> front ends you could only support th
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> | > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> | >> 1.6: qt4, gtk and maybe qt3.
> | >
> | > And qt5.
> |
> | And the old story goes on: lyx supports too much frontends.
>
> I have no idea why you think
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> | > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> | >> 1.6: qt4, gtk and maybe qt3.
> | >
> | > And qt5.
> |
> | And the old story goes on: lyx supports too much frontends.
>
> I have no idea why you think
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
| > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
| >> 1.6: qt4, gtk and maybe qt3.
| >
| > And qt5.
|
| And the old story goes on: lyx supports too much frontends.
I have no idea why you think having just one frontend is some kind of
silver
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>> 1.6: qt4, gtk and maybe qt3.
>
> Juergen> And qt5.
>
> It depends how slow we manage to be.
It's always so slow because no clear cut is made.
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> 1.6: qt4, gtk and maybe qt3.
>
> And qt5.
And the old story goes on: lyx supports too much frontends.
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> The longer term vision is that xforms and qt3 goes away, but
| Lars> that qt4 and gtk stays.
|
| Agreed (provided that we do have people who are dedicated to gtk).
Of cou
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> 1.6: qt4, gtk and maybe qt3.
Juergen> And qt5.
It depends how slow we manage to be.
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> 1.6: qt4, gtk and maybe qt3.
And qt5.
SCNR,
Jürgen
> "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> The longer term vision is that xforms and qt3 goes away, but
Lars> that qt4 and gtk stays.
Jean-Marc> Agreed (provided that we do have people who are dedicat
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> The longer term vision is that xforms and qt3 goes away, but
Lars> that qt4 and gtk stays.
Agreed (provided that we do have people who are dedicated to gtk).
JMarc
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I would say "There Can Be Only One"
we need to make a choice for trunk
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Qt3 is a short term solution, in the long run it is a dead end.
> |
> | At the latest when KDE 4 is out the majority of the distros have Qt4.
> | Also Qt4 could optionally ship with LSB systems.
> |
> | But LyX fiddles w
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Qt3 is a short term solution, in the long run it is a dead end.
|
| At the latest when KDE 4 is out the majority of the distros have Qt4.
| Also Qt4 could optionally ship with LSB systems.
|
| But LyX fiddles with four frontends. I want to see a longter
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > |
> | > | Yes, I would drop all other front ends from trunk immediately.
> | > |
> | > So we should keep only the one that is possible
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I am [not] saying that we should delete them but maybe not force all and every
change to happen on all frontend at the same time. We should choose one
(qt4) and let the other frontends be developed by those interested in them.
i couldn't agree more
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I am saying that we should delete them but maybe not force all and every
I am _not_ saying ...
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> |
>> | Yes, I would drop all other front ends from trunk immediately.
>> |
>>
>> So we should keep only the one that is possible to use on most distros
>> and platforms then? Qt3 it is. I'll co
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > |
| > | Yes, I would drop all other front ends from trunk immediately.
| > |
| > So we should keep only the one that is possible to use on most
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > |
| > | Yes, I would drop all other front ends from trunk immediately.
| > |
| > So we should keep only the one that is possible to use on most
| > distros
| > and platform
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Yes, I would drop all other front ends from trunk immediately.
|
So we should keep only the one that is possible to use on most distros
and platforms then? Qt3 it is. I'll commence with the deleteion of the
others right a
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Yes, I would drop all other front ends from trunk immediately.
|
So we should keep only the one that is possible to use on most distros
and platforms then? Qt3 it is. I'll commence with the deleteion of the
others right away.
|
| Often it sounds li
On Friday 23 June 2006 11:00, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
>
>
> I didn't know the 'no-smiley day', but it looks
> interesting, and I think I like it.
The concept is best expressed here:
http://www.lyx.org/news/2726.php#item3
--
José Abílio
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
I didn't know the 'no-smiley day', but it looks
interesting, and I think I like it.
> We should keep one (qt4 of course)
Yes, I would drop all other front ends from trunk immediately.
>> 2 operating systems,
>
> 3. You forgot MacOSX!
>
>> Qt
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Haven't we discussed the patch on the list? I don't wanna explain all
the stuff again in the log message.
. don't wanna see here my comments again ;)
Sorry, this was a very emotional reply on a harmless request,
but I didn't expect that this patch
Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Haven't we discussed the patch on the list? I don't wanna explain all
> the stuff again in the log message.
>
> . don't wanna see here my comments again ;)
Sorry, this was a very emotional reply on a harmless request,
but I didn't expect that this patch will take so muc
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:10:57AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>
> > Georg Baum wrote:
> >> Look also at the QApplication problem: I asked for testing by windows
> >> people, and the only response I got was from Peter. I am not motivated at
> >> all to continue fixing bugs
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
>> Look also at the QApplication problem: I asked for testing by windows
>> people, and the only response I got was from Peter. I am not motivated at
>> all to continue fixing bugs for other people if they can't be bothered to
>> even test the patches.
Georg Baum wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 18:59 schrieb Bo Peng:
Regarding conservativeness, I do feel that we should do more in the
user (and developer) friendliness end. The idea that a normal user
will read tutorial and follow the instructions is plainly wrong. There
are also some discrim
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 17:59, Bo Peng wrote:
> There
> are also some discrimination against windows system so
> windows-specific changes are harder to be accepted (e.g. space in
> path, scons, .C=>,cpp conversion, msvc/pch). Scons still managed to
> get in though. :-)
Please don't confuse our
Look also at the QApplication problem: I asked for testing by windows
people, and the only response I got was from Peter. I am not motivated at
all to continue fixing bugs for other people if they can't be bothered to
even test the patches.
While, Abdel was busy, I do not usually have access to
Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 18:59 schrieb Bo Peng:
> Regarding conservativeness, I do feel that we should do more in the
> user (and developer) friendliness end. The idea that a normal user
> will read tutorial and follow the instructions is plainly wrong. There
> are also some discrimination again
"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Haven't we discussed the patch on the list? I don't wanna explain all
| > the stuff again in the log message.
|
| What you are lacking is which files you have changed.
svn log -v
--
Lgb
> FYI I had the very same reaction when I first joined in (Bo also I
> believe). I still think that the LyX team is overly conservative but I
> have the feeling that this is changing.
I am sorry for pointing the obvious, "or you are changing, you become one of
us". ;-)
I was mainly complainin
Jose' Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 17:12, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
FYI I had the very same reaction when I first joined in (Bo also I
believe). I still think that the LyX team is overly conservative but I
have the feeling that this is changing.
I am sorry for pointing the obvious,
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 17:12, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> FYI I had the very same reaction when I first joined in (Bo also I
> believe). I still think that the LyX team is overly conservative but I
> have the feeling that this is changing.
I am sorry for pointing the obvious, "or you are chang
Haven't we discussed the patch on the list? I don't wanna explain all
the stuff again in the log message.
What you are lacking is which files you have changed. The description
should not be too long, something like: add isMaximized options, allow
save/restore correct windows size/state. No furth
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: kuemmel
Date: Wed Jun 21 12:30:32 2006
New Revision: 14166
Log:
fix: qt3/qt4 save/restore of the window geometry and maximize status
Try to be more verbose next time Peter. The SVN log is there to let us
know what h
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Author: kuemmel
>> Date: Wed Jun 21 12:30:32 2006
>> New Revision: 14166
>>
>> Log:
>> fix: qt3/qt4 save/restore of the window geometry and maximize status
>
> Try to be more verbose next time Peter. The SVN log is there to let us
> know what
> Log:
> fix: qt3/qt4 save/restore of the window geometry and maximize status
Try to be more verbose next time Peter. The SVN log is there to let us
know what has changed without having to svn diff in the future.
Peter will be annoyed. Last time, I asked him to reduce log message
(he used to pu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: kuemmel
Date: Wed Jun 21 12:30:32 2006
New Revision: 14166
Log:
fix: qt3/qt4 save/restore of the window geometry and maximize status
Try to be more verbose next time Peter. The SVN log is there to let us
know what has changed without having to svn diff in the
75 matches
Mail list logo
