Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:58:51AM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 17/05/2016 19:31, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > > > I tried your patch. I have the same problems as with Stephan's patch > > (also reported by Kornel). For example, none of alt+f, alt+f, alt+d, > > alt+s work for me. > > > >

Re: [LyX/master] Japanese doc files: big translation update fro 2.2.0 from Koji

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:19:07AM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 17.05.2016 um 20:58 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: > > > This commit introduced many absolute paths and caused the file to not > > compile anymore. > > Thanks for the pointer. Unfortunately I cannot compile Japanese in general. > For the

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

Le 17/05/2016 19:31, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : I tried your patch. I have the same problems as with Stephan's patch (also reported by Kornel). For example, none of alt+f, alt+f, alt+d, alt+s work for me. How about removing what makes no sense? >From 334bb3ef61273cc2c3f348dbf27169623633231d

Re: [LyX/master] Japanese doc files: big translation update fro 2.2.0 from Koji

Am 17.05.2016 um 20:58 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: This commit introduced many absolute paths and caused the file to not compile anymore. Thanks for the pointer. Unfortunately I cannot compile Japanese in general. For the other files I check the compilability. I fixed the image paths already.

Re: [LyX/master] Japanese doc files: big translation update fro 2.2.0 from Koji

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:12:14AM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > commit b289c597ae22f5cf5a7b5d5a9215c9d2f16c7700 > Author: Uwe Stöhr <uwesto...@lyx.org> > Date: Wed May 4 01:12:04 2016 +0200 > > Japanese doc files: big translation update fro 2.2.0 from Koji > &

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

ue, May 10, 2016 at 03:04:13AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:39:54PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > As new issues have popping up (and will without d

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

ed, May 04, 2016 at 04:39:54PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > As new issues have popping up (and will without doubt continue to > > > > > keep popping > > > > > up), I want to give an

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

(and will without doubt continue to keep popping up), I want to give an update of how close I think we are to the next step in the release process. The two main issues in my mind are: 1. Cannot create shortcuts. This problem is present with Qt 5.6 and on all platforms. Since we are planning to ship Mac

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:39:54PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > Dear all, > > As new issues have popping up (and will without doubt continue to keep popping > up), I want to give an update of how close I think we are to the next step in > the release process. The two main is

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

up (and will without doubt continue to keep > > > popping > > > up), I want to give an update of how close I think we are to the next > > > step in > > > the release process. The two main issues in my mind are: > > > > > > 1. Cannot create shortc

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

will without doubt continue to keep > > > popping > > > up), I want to give an update of how close I think we are to the next > > > step in > > > the release process. The two main issues in my mind are: > > > > > > 1. Cannot create shortcuts. This pr

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

Le 10/05/16 à 09:04, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:39:54PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: Dear all, As new issues have popping up (and will without doubt continue to keep popping up), I want to give an update of how close I think we are to the next step in the release

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:04:13AM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:39:54PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > As new issues have popping up (and will without doubt continue to keep > > popping > > up), I want to give

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:39:54PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > Dear all, > > As new issues have popping up (and will without doubt continue to keep popping > up), I want to give an update of how close I think we are to the next step in > the release process. The two main is

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

the latest remerge by > >> > >> python development/tools/mergepo.py -o -l xx -t po /tmp/ > >> > >> wher xx is the language to be merged, and the contributed xx.po files is > >> in the directory /tmp/. The script does not update the header lines, so > >

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

p/ >> >> wher xx is the language to be merged, and the contributed xx.po files is >> in the directory /tmp/. The script does not update the header lines, so >> these have to be merged manually for now. > > OK go ahead. Nothing to be done ATM:-) This was just a

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 07:58:53PM -0400, Ian Wilder wrote: > +1 for not branching. If it's just print statements, the use functions to be > compatible with Python 3. > A lot of Python 3 functionality has been backported to 2.x Thanks for the interest, Josh and Ian. Note that we have a ticket

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 10:33:23PM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 06/05/2016 21:09, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 11:19:56PM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > > > Le 04/05/2016 21:39, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > > > What am I missing? > > > > > > > > > > #10068: Files

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

> > OK go ahead. > > Done. Now I would recommend to merge all .po file contributions that are not > based on the latest remerge by > > python development/tools/mergepo.py -o -l xx -t po /tmp/ > > wher xx is the language to be merged, and the contributed xx.po files is in

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

+1 for not branching. If it's just print statements, the use functions to be compatible with Python 3. A lot of Python 3 functionality has been backported to 2.x On 2016-05-09 00:35:57 +, Josh Hieronymus said: Looking over the code, it looks like much of the problem is that Python 2 has

Re: 2.2.0rc1 update

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 9:31:34 PM WEST Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 09/04/16 09:48, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > I'm planning to follow standard practice of specifying the number of > > minor versions of 2.1 to 5, as below. > > What is this used for? > > JMarc It should be used for

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

Looking over the code, it looks like much of the problem is that Python 2 has print as a statement, while Python 3 has print as a function. Since we're supporting only Python 2.7 from the 2.x series, we could add an import statement to use print as a function in order to avoid checking the version

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

On 2016-05-04 20:39:54 +, Scott Kostyshak said: 3. A Python3 compatibility issue at [5]. I don't know whether the best short-run approach is to ensure that we use Python2 to call the script or to fix the script to be compatible with Python3. I CC'ed José to see if he has some wisdom to

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

Le 06/05/2016 21:09, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 11:19:56PM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: Le 04/05/2016 21:39, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : What am I missing? #10068: Files distributed with lyx should not contain parbreak and latexpar

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Stephan Witt wrote: > > Sorry, I should have mentioned the name. They are named org.lyx.LyX* > > But I’m not sure if these are the only locations where Qt stores internal > state. > > Stephan Moving org.lyx* out of that directory does not cure

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

merge by python development/tools/mergepo.py -o -l xx -t po /tmp/ wher xx is the language to be merged, and the contributed xx.po files is in the directory /tmp/. The script does not update the header lines, so these have to be merged manually for now. Georg

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

Am 06.05.2016 um 23:52 schrieb Joel Kulesza : > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Stephan Witt wrote: > You may consider to remove or rename the QSettings storage. It should be in > $HOME/Library/Preferences. > > This doesn't appear to be the case. > >

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Stephan Witt wrote: > You may consider to remove or rename the QSettings storage. It should be > in $HOME/Library/Preferences. This doesn't appear to be the case. 10011 jkulesza@tempest[~/Library/Preferences]> la QS* ls: QS*: No such file or

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

lying issue that > should be corrected. > > However, as you can imagine, this is *very* annoying behavior that I'd like > to cease dealing with. As such, when 2.2.0 ships and if this still plagues > me, I'll likely try a total system wipe of LyX and then reinstall 2.2.0 > (which will

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

way I can because of the potential for this to signal an underlying issue that should be corrected. However, as you can imagine, this is *very* annoying behavior that I'd like to cease dealing with. As such, when 2.2.0 ships and if this still plagues me, I'll likely try a total system wipe of LyX and then reinstall 2.2.0 (which will *hopefully* correct the issue). If this route is taken, and the issue disappears, I'll update the ticket accordingly.

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 11:19:56PM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 04/05/2016 21:39, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > > > 4. Insert Cross-Reference Causes Crash. See #9992. Unfortunately, no > > one can reproduce except the OP, Joel. Joel has been extremely > > helpful in debugging and is able to

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 02:24:56PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > Guillaume Munch wrote: > > > Le 04/05/2016 21:39, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >> > >> 9. Disabled OK button in Doc Settings if negative value (allowed in > >> 2.1.x). See #10095 and [3]. I posted a patch. It is just a matter of > >>

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

aused a resorting of entries). OK go ahead. Scott > > > Georg > commit dae9f6a83df37576fbb3753492fe6a1094d92248 > Author: Georg Baum <b...@lyx.org> > Date: Sun Apr 24 21:06:12 2016 +0200 > > Update fuzzy translations without -o > > This is what the pol

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

24 21:06:12 2016 +0200 Update fuzzy translations without -o This is what the polib version does already. If a translation is marked fuzzy then it is not used, so if the other file contains a non-fuzzy translation we do not throw away useful information if we overtake

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 04/05/2016 21:39, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : >> >> 9. Disabled OK button in Doc Settings if negative value (allowed in >> 2.1.x). See #10095 and [3]. I posted a patch. It is just a matter of >> seeing if there is enough support for it. >> > > I thought there was

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

Josh Hieronymus wrote: > With respect to issue #3, what versions of Python are we looking to support? INSTALL: The two following programs should be available at configuration time: o Python 2.7 must be installed. Python is used for many simple tasks that are executed by external scripts,

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

Le 04/05/2016 21:39, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : 4. Insert Cross-Reference Causes Crash. See #9992. Unfortunately, no one can reproduce except the OP, Joel. Joel has been extremely helpful in debugging and is able to compile LyX but only with Qt 5.5.1. Unless we make further progress in

Re: Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

With respect to issue #3, what versions of Python are we looking to support? On May 4, 2016 3:40 PM, "Scott Kostyshak" <skost...@lyx.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > As new issues have popping up (and will without doubt continue to keep > popping > up), I want to give an

Update on situation for 2.2.0 release

Dear all, As new issues have popping up (and will without doubt continue to keep popping up), I want to give an update of how close I think we are to the next step in the release process. The two main issues in my mind are: 1. Cannot create shortcuts. This problem is present with Qt 5.6

Re: 2.2.0rc1 update

Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Not from my side. I would only like that the po-files are remerged so > that our translators can do their work after RC1 is released. Does that mean we had string changes again? I thougt that the strings in .po files were up to date after your last remerge. Georg

Re: 2.2.0rc1 update

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 09:31:34PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 09/04/16 09:48, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >I'm planning to follow standard practice of specifying the number of > >minor versions of 2.1 to 5, as below. > > What is this used for? lyx2lyx but not sure what for

Re: 2.2.0rc1 update

Le 09/04/16 09:48, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : I'm planning to follow standard practice of specifying the number of minor versions of 2.1 to 5, as below. What is this used for? JMarc

Re: 2.2.0rc1 update

Am Samstag, 9. April 2016 um 15:05:06, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Samstag, 9. April 2016 um 13:19:54, schrieb Liviu Andronic > > > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Scott Kostyshak

Re: 2.2.0rc1 update

On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Samstag, 9. April 2016 um 13:19:54, schrieb Liviu Andronic > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > 2.2.0rc1 is right around the

Re: 2.2.0rc1 update

Am 09.04.2016 um 09:48 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: 2.2.0rc1 is right around the corner. The final changes for layout translations have been committed, we've agreed to stop the layout discussion for now after good progress, and one more layout commit is expected to go in. It is in now. If there

Re: 2.2.0rc1 update

Am Samstag, 9. April 2016 um 13:19:54, schrieb Liviu Andronic > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > 2.2.0rc1 is right around the corner. The final changes for layout > > translations have been committed,

Re: 2.2.0rc1 update

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > Dear all, > > 2.2.0rc1 is right around the corner. The final changes for layout > translations have been committed, we've agreed to stop the layout > discussion for now after good progress, and one more layout commit is

2.2.0rc1 update

Dear all, 2.2.0rc1 is right around the corner. The final changes for layout translations have been committed, we've agreed to stop the layout discussion for now after good progress, and one more layout commit is expected to go in. If there is an urgent issue that I've forgotten about that

Re: [patch] update layout for acmsiggraph

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:11:56AM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > This decision is not forever, I mean we can switch to another one in case > problems arise during the 2.2.x life cycle. Yes we have a good foundation for future discussion. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [patch] update layout for acmsiggraph

Am 06.04.2016 um 00:27 schrieb Scott Kostyshak: 1. discussion This is where we are at now. We are discussing a topic that is at least 5 years old. Yes, and we are now already discussing this for more than 2 months. I don't understand why so much time is necessary to come to a decision.

Re: acmsiggraph layout: update or new version?

yles. However, after working on a layout and template update, I came to the conclusion that acmsiggraph.cls is *not* an example of changes in the *.cls file requiring a versioned layout. The *incompatible* changes are to the template: the current ACM-siggraph.lyx template (in bo

Re: acmsiggraph layout: update or new version?

Guenter Milde wrote: > There was well based objection to the proposal of a new version-layout by > Georg in http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.editors.lyx.devel/161202 from > 28 March: > > Before discussing the case of incompatible versions with the same name > further, I'd like to see an

Re: acmsiggraph layout: update or new version?

h an updated layout sceduled for 2.3 to be backported to 2.2.1.). If there is toggle-room for string changes, we could also make a minimal update to acmsiggraph.layout placing the obsoleted styles in Category Obsolete for improved user-feedback. Günter Exec: git 'diff' 'ACM-siggraph.lyx' 2>&1 D

Re: acmsiggraph layout: update or new version?

where the class file name differs (g-brief, svjour, ...). >>>> +1 no need for *.cls version detection >>> We are going to need this anyway, because of the issues with respect >>> to stable. >> Could you elaborate? (I don't see why this should be different for >

Re: acmsiggraph layout: update or new version? (was: patch for aastex6)

guage documents only. When would be the next point for new translatable strings? (2.2.1 or 2.3) Other points to consider for the decision about an acmsiggraph patch: * Getting 2.2.0 out ASAP is most important. * It is too late for a file format change in 2.2.0 now (correct me if I am w

Re: acmsiggraph layout: update or new version?

t file in stable: - you simply needed to skip some obsolete styles. Eventually, this can be communicated to the user with updated labels and grouping them in Category Obsolete. (This would be a non-critical update, if backporting new label strings is allowed). - You need a few ERT insets, but

Re: acmsiggraph layout: update or new version?

see why this should be different for stable and > master.) Because we can't simply update the layout file in stable. That is what gives rise to this problem in the first place. >>> +1 obsolete styles can be sorted in a new group "Obsolete" and be given a &

Re: acmsiggraph layout: update or new version?

other patch (acmsiggraph.layout with incompatible version but >>>>>>> same cls file name), I would wait for an agreement whether to update >>>>>>> the layout (file format change neeed) or add a new one. My last >>>>>>> preferenc

Re: acmsiggraph layout: update or new version? (was: patch for aastex6)

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 06:15:11PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > The only question would be whether it is > > allowed to change translatable strings (we are past string freeze). > > What have we done in the past at this stage? If we do not allow changes > to translatable strings then that

Re: [patch] update layout for acmsiggraph

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 03:08:39AM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > p.s. sorry for not following the list. I had/have lot of stress and try to > have a look the next days to be up to date No problem, sorry to hear about the stress! Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [patch] update layout for acmsiggraph

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:34:49PM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 05.04.2016 um 14:10 schrieb Guenter Milde: > > >It seems you did miss my recent patch. > >It is a pity that we could not avoid wasting of time and ressources... > > > > The problem is, that the new section in the Development.lyx file

Re: acmsiggraph layout: update or new version? (was: patch for aastex6)

sion > >>>>> but same cls file name), I would wait for an agreement whether to > >>>>> update the layout (file format change needed) or add a new one. My > >>>>> last preference is an updated layout file. > > > >>>> D

Re: [patch] update layout for acmsiggraph

Am 05.04.2016 um 14:10 schrieb Guenter Milde: It seems you did miss my recent patch. It is a pity that we could not avoid wasting of time and ressources... > > The problem is, that the new section in the Development.lyx file is a > draft that is not finally agreed on. I am ashamed and sad

Re: acmsiggraph layout: update or new version? (was: patch for aastex6)

Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2016-04-05, Richard Heck wrote: >> On 04/05/2016 04:36 AM, Guenter Milde wrote: > >>>>> For the other patch (acmsiggraph.layout with incompatible version >>>>> but same cls file name), I would wait for an agreement whether to &

acmsiggraph layout: update or new version? (was: patch for aastex6)

On 2016-04-05, Richard Heck wrote: > On 04/05/2016 04:36 AM, Guenter Milde wrote: >>>> For the other patch (acmsiggraph.layout with incompatible version >>>> but same cls file name), I would wait for an agreement whether to >>>> update the layout (file for

Re: [patch] update layout for acmsiggraph

On 2016-04-05, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 7bit --] > attached is a patch to update the layout of acmsiggraph according to the > latest development.lyx file. It seems you did miss my recent patch. It is a pity that we could not avoid wasting of time and ressour

[patch] update layout for acmsiggraph

attached is a patch to update the layout of acmsiggraph according to the latest development.lyx file. Is this OK to go in or what else do I have to do? thanks and regards Uwe p.s. sorry for not following the list. I had/have lot of stress and try to have a look the next days to be up to date

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

On 2016-03-16, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: >> Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak >> >> > On current master run this test: >> > ctest -R

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 13:28:16, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > > > > On current master run this test: > > > ctest -R

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 04:00:22PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 15. März 2016 um 11:56:42, schrieb Guenter Milde > > > > > Dear Scott, > > > > > > On 2016-03-15, Scott

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

On 2016-03-15, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:56:42AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: >> >> The ~100 failing tests merit some investigation (at least if not fixed in >> >> a >> >> couple of days). >> > I sent an email with an MWE here: >> >

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 14:06:33, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > The regex that the patch removes is this: > > > export/doc/es/UserGuide_.*_systemF > > > > > > I do not think that should match > > > "^UNRELIABLE.WRONG.OUTPUT_export/doc/es/UserGuide_pdf5_texF$" > > > >

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > On current master run this test: > > ctest -R "^UNRELIABLE.WRONG.OUTPUT_export/doc/es/UserGuide_pdf5_texF$" > > > > I get that it passes. > >

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 06:45:11PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 13:28:16, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > >

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 07:48:26PM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2016-03-16, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > >> Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 01:55:01, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > >> > > >> > On current master run

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 04:00:22PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Dienstag, 15. März 2016 um 11:56:42, schrieb Guenter Milde > > > Dear Scott, > > > > On 2016-03-15, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:26:23PM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > > >> On

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:32:59PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 14:06:33, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > > > The regex that the patch removes is this: > > > > export/doc/es/UserGuide_.*_systemF > > > > > > > > I do not think that should match > >

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 18:11:29, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:32:59PM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 16. März 2016 um 14:06:33, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > > > > > The regex that the patch removes is this: > > >

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

ought. I was under the impression that there was a permanent intended change. But indeed it seems things should be back to normal (from the user perspective) once the update make it into TL. > Whether you want to invert the tests for the time beeing > (SuspiciousTests -> texissues) is up to

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

9e04c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Scott Kostyshak <skost...@lyx.org> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 01:07:21 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] ctests: uninvert 3 tests that pass due to updates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit When updating to the late

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

s_sample and templates/aastex > >> as unreliable (required package missing in some installations) > >> and file a bug for LyX to provide a new aastex6.layout. > > A search for "aastex changelog" was not successfull, but finally I found > the announcment > htt

Re: 11 ctests fail after TL update

On 2016-03-15, Kornel Benko wrote: >> > Tested again: >> > 0% tests passed, 11 tests failed out of 11 ... >> Kornel, could you please try to "recreate" one of the failing test cases "by >> hand" and report the error log? > OK, trying with EXAMPLES_export/examples/ru/splash_pdf5_systemF: > ...

Re: 11 ctests fail after TL update

Am Dienstag, 15. März 2016 um 12:49:22, schrieb Guenter Milde > On 2016-03-15, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 15. März 2016 um 00:01:22, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:34:26AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > >> > On

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

; Should we uninvert now then? > > Yes (if the cases export fine for Kornel, too). They do. > >> >> > > 1915:EXAMPLES_export/examples/aas_sample_dvi > ... > >> >> > > 4455:TEMPLATES_export/templates/aastex_pdf5_systemF > >> >> > > >> >&g

Re: 11 ctests fail after TL update

On 2016-03-15, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Dienstag, 15. März 2016 um 00:01:22, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:34:26AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: >> > On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:24:55PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

ix for the >> spanis sinus an cosinus functions... > Should we uninvert now then? Yes (if the cases export fine for Kornel, too). >> >> > > 1915:EXAMPLES_export/examples/aas_sample_dvi ... >> >> > > 4455:TEMPLATES_export/templates/aastex_pdf5_systemF >&g

Re: 11 ctests fail after TL update

Am Dienstag, 15. März 2016 um 00:01:22, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:34:26AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > > On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > > [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --] > > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:24:55PM -0500, Scott

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

ling that I > > would look into but haven't spent the time to do so yet. > > OK. How many failing tests that are *not* UNRELIABLE? I'll look into this after the 121 new failures are (hopefully) fixed. > >> > > I also attach my tlmgr update log, in case it is of inter

Re: 11 ctests fail after TL update

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:34:26AM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --] > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:24:55PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 07:40:34PM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > > >>

Re: 11 ctests fail after TL update

On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: --] > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:24:55PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 07:40:34PM +, Guenter Milde wrote: >> Thanks, Guenter. This really puts things into perspective for me. >> I updated

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

ostyshak wrote: >> > >> > > The number of ctest failures for me went from 107 to 228 on a recent >> > > tlmgr update that updated from package revision 39840 to 39991. >> > >> > And I thought we had the failures down to 0! What went wrong? > Well I st

Re: 11 ctests fail after TL update

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:24:55PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 07:40:34PM +, Guenter Milde wrote: > Thanks, Guenter. This really puts things into perspective for me. > I updated #8035 with your clear explanation. Should we mark these tests as unreliable, with a

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

lures for me went from 107 to 228 on a recent > > > tlmgr update that updated from package revision 39840 to 39991. > > > > And I thought we had the failures down to 0! What went wrong? Well I still run the tests that are "UNRELIABLE". I just don't pay as much attention

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

Am Sonntag, 13. März 2016 um 11:13:32, schrieb Guenter Milde <mi...@users.sf.net> > Hallo Scott, > > On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > The number of ctest failures for me went from 107 to 228 on a recent > > tlmgr update that updated from package revis

Re: 121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

Hallo Scott, On 2016-03-13, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > The number of ctest failures for me went from 107 to 228 on a recent > tlmgr update that updated from package revision 39840 to 39991. And I thought we had the failures down to 0! What went wrong? > So the changes in tests shou

121 ctests go from passing to failing after tlmgr update

The number of ctest failures for me went from 107 to 228 on a recent tlmgr update that updated from package revision 39840 to 39991. As usual I did the following: 1. clean LyX build 2. ctest 3. tlmgr update 4. clean LyX build 5. ctest 6. compare results So the changes in tests should be due only

Re: 11 ctests fail after TL update

't > know whether the polyglossia people would say it's a feature... > > > So to make sure I understand, it would not be helpful if I sent an email > > to the TeX Live list with a minimal example of a document that succeeded > > before the update and now fails? > > No

Re: 11 ctests fail after TL update

email > to the TeX Live list with a minimal example of a document that succeeded > before the update and now fails? Not really. It it only fails with some fonts - actually only with some versions of fonts, to it is hard to reproduce. Your minimal example may work at some place and fai

Re: 11 ctests fail after TL update

d not be helpful if I sent an email to the TeX Live list with a minimal example of a document that succeeded before the update and now fails? Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: 11 ctests fail after TL update

Am Sonntag, 6. März 2016 um 19:36:43, schrieb Guenter Milde > On 2016-03-06, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Samstag, 5. März 2016 um 21:36:43, schrieb Guenter Milde > > > >> On 2016-02-27, Guenter Milde wrote: > > Dear Kornel, > > >> >>> >> >> I've updated

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >