Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 09:25:30PM +, John Levon wrote:
| > > Having something to work on would have made me much happier and I
| > > certainly would not have considered leaving lyx development.
| >
| > I'm still at a complete loss why you had to st
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 09:25:30PM +, John Levon wrote:
> > Having something to work on would have made me much happier and I
> > certainly would not have considered leaving lyx development.
>
> I'm still at a complete loss why you had to stop working just because
> you couldn't commit to the
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:11:19AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> We have been talking about using cvs branches for ages but nobody has ever
> bothered, simply because noone else would bother to check out this branch
> and either (a) comment or (b) help.
Nonetheless, the branches we have did get
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:54:13AM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Having something to work on would have made me much happier and I
> certainly would not have considered leaving lyx development.
I'm still at a complete loss why you had to stop working just because
you couldn't commit to the main b
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:49:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> It is too late during any freeze. With your proposal of "stuff
> Andre> to be fixed under all circumstances" we just run into a
> Andre> deadlock: Some problem will be discovered in a freeze, nothing
> Andre> clean can b
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
I see you were not the guy who had to try to sort out problems in
1.2.0 or 1.2.1. I can tell you that trying to get bugs fixed when
people are more interested in kernel reworks is a real pain.
This may be true about big bugs in the kernel. But don't forget that
we hav
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> The final product will be more stable if stuff is fixed
Andre> properly. The difference, of course is the date.
Andre> The real question is do we want a rock solid 1.3 in 2008 or a
Andre> somewhat broken 1.3 the day after tomorrow.
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> It is too late during any freeze. With your proposal of "stuff
Andre> to be fixed under all circumstances" we just run into a
Andre> deadlock: Some problem will be discovered in a freeze, nothing
Andre> clean can be done about it be
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:29:34AM +0100, Michael Schmitt
Andre> wrote:
>> BTW: If you intend to work with many branches in the future, you
>> should have a look at http://subversion.tigris.org
Andre> I think we can't afford workin
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:51:26AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> You have not exactly been persistent about getting this fixed...
It has not been reproducible so far. I've tried several times. _I_ believe
lyx core it too complex for me to understand, so if _I_ had t fix it I
would have to ri
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:43:15AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | until you remove my karma. This way I don't feel bad for not fixing broken
> | stuff
>
> So then you can claim that "I know there are broken stuff and I'd be
> happy to fix it, but I am not able to play nice so my karma was
>
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Undo crashes are critical for me as I currently get them about once a day
| although I know that I have to avoid multiple undos. And I already lost a
| few lines although this is "impossible".
You have not exactly been persistent about getting this fixe
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:29:34AM +0100, Michael Schmitt wrote:
> BTW: If you intend to work with many branches in the future, you should
> have a look at http://subversion.tigris.org
I think we can't afford working on many branches.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to g
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:08:30AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | Next time please set fixed dates, and if the stuff is not ready, scrap the
| > | release plans and let everybody go on.
| >
| > In this kind of project fixed dates are bad bad ba
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:03:02AM +0100, Michael Schmitt wrote:
> IMHO there should also be a list of open issues/bugs that must be fixed
> under all circumstances.
> Such a list should be set up by all developers
> about a month before the next release. Today there is bugzilla with the
> oppor
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> The best would probably be do create four rpms. (or three)
>>
>> ipzone-xforms ipzone-qt ipzone-common ipzone-doc
>>
>> xforms and qt would basically only contain the binaries.
What about putting th
Angus Leeming wrote:
Indeed. Actually, we could turn it around and create a 'release' branch
using exactly the same procedure as used by JMarc in his 'stable' branches.
The only difference is that we have much more back porting.
Moreover, if it turns out that people just continue developing in
Andre Poenitz wrote:
>> Of course, we don't have to release each time some new, but stable,
>> addition is made to head, but can accumulate several changes. In fact, it
>> sounds a bit like the way JMarc manages his stable branches.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> We certainly need a means to handle
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:11:19AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Of course, we don't have to release each time some new, but stable, addition
> is made to head, but can accumulate several changes. In fact, it sounds a
> bit like the way JMarc manages his stable branches.
>
> What do you think?
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:08:30AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Next time please set fixed dates, and if the stuff is not ready, scrap the
> | release plans and let everybody go on.
>
> In this kind of project fixed dates are bad bad bad.
Ok. So next time I'll keep commiting math stuff a
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Having the release five weeks after the real code freeze does not
sound to bad to me.
Next time please set fixed dates, and if the stuff is not ready, scrap the
release plans and let everybody go on.
IMHO there should also be a list of open issues/bugs that must be fix
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:47:48AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | Is completely independent of the rest of the world, and can be
>> | stabilized in five minutes by just switching back to "last known good".
>>
>> Is that stabilizing? I thought that counted as revert
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:47:48AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | Is completely independent of the rest of the world, and can be stabilized
| > | in five minutes by just switching back to "last known good".
| >
| > Is that stabilizing? I thoug
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:47:48AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Is completely independent of the rest of the world, and can be stabilized
> | in five minutes by just switching back to "last known good".
>
> Is that stabilizing? I thought that counted as reverting and ditching.
The chanc
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:45:25AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> The only delay now is a couple of days for the translation people to
> catch up a bit.
>
> It won't be long now...
Please set a fixed date.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not h
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | We currently spend more time with doing nothing waiting for releases
| > than | with actual work. This was already bad with 1.2, but its now close
| > to | five months that we are waiting for 1.3. | | I still believe this
| > time had better be inve
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:04:36AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | NOOO!
| >
| > I guess the "N*O" is for the prospect of delaying 1.3.0?
|
| I don't think any delay _now_ is a
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:09:21AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> We could delay the rpm generation, and just provide the tar.gz at
> first. We just supply a broken spec file with it :-/
Fine with me. Btw, rpm seems to build fine with srcdir != builddir right
now.
> | We currently spend mo
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:04:36AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | NOOO!
>
> I guess the "N*O" is for the prospect of delaying 1.3.0?
I don't think any delay _now_ is a good idea.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:51:10PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Or... perhaps we should delay 1.3.0 a bit to put this into place...
|
| No further 1.3.0 delay, _please_.
We could delay the rpm generation, and just provide the tar.gz at
first.
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:00:42PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
| > > Or... perhaps we should delay 1.3.0 a bit to put this into place... it
| > > would fit the xforms and qt better
| >
| > I think that that is a good idea. Otherwise, we end up looking a
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Goodness, you've been busy. One changes and lyx.spec compiles:
|
| In Makefile.am, change
| $(LN_S) -f $(srcdir)/lib/images/lyx.xpm .
| to
| cp $(srcdir)/lib/images/lyx.xpm /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/
Hmm... mine does not need that..
|
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| | On Tuesday 04 February 2003 10:51 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| | > | Or can you just modify the existing spec file to make 4 rpms and be done
| | > | with it?
| | >
| | > yes.
| | >
| | > But I w
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:00:42PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Or... perhaps we should delay 1.3.0 a bit to put this into place... it
> > would fit the xforms and qt better
>
> I think that that is a good idea. Otherwise, we end up looking a bit
> amateurish.
NOOO
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:51:10PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Or... perhaps we should delay 1.3.0 a bit to put this into place...
No further 1.3.0 delay, _please_.
We currently spend more time with doing nothing waiting for releases than
with actual work. This was already bad with 1.2, b
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:53:43PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote:
> What about having a shell script that launches the correct binary
> depending on a flag?
I guess users can arrange that on their own.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have,
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Tuesday 04 February 2003 10:51 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > | Or can you just modify the existing spec file to make 4 rpms and be
> | > | done with it?
> | >
> | > yes.
> | >
> | > But I will not change anyt
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 02:59:37AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> This is how far I got... not really working and giving errors...
space missing after --with-frontend=qt
regards
john
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tuesday 04 February 2003 10:51 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | Or can you just modify the existing spec file to make 4 rpms and be done
| > | with it?
| >
| > yes.
| >
| > But I will not change anything for 1.3.0.
| >
| > Or... perhaps we should
On Tuesday 04 February 2003 10:51 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Or can you just modify the existing spec file to make 4 rpms and be done
> | with it?
>
> yes.
>
> But I will not change anything for 1.3.0.
>
> Or... perhaps we should delay 1.3.0 a bit to put this into place... it
> would fit th
Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 4 Feb 2003, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 05:46:05PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | > The best would probably be do create four rpms. (or three)
| > | >
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > The best would probably be do create four rpms. (or three)
| >
| > ipzone-xforms
| > ipzone-qt
| > ipzone-common
| > ipzone-doc
| >
| > xforms and qt would basically only contain the binaries.
|
| And what's the best wa
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> The best would probably be do create four rpms. (or three)
>
> ipzone-xforms
> ipzone-qt
> ipzone-common
> ipzone-doc
>
> xforms and qt would basically only contain the binaries.
And what's the best way to do that? A single rpmdist target in Makefile.am,
as now, th
On 4 Feb 2003, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 05:46:05PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > The best would probably be do create four rpms. (or three)
> | >
Just a general thought:
I'd probably want to be able to run bot
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 05:46:05PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > The best would probably be do create four rpms. (or three)
| >
| > ipzone-xforms
| > ipzone-qt
| > ipzone-common
| > ipzone-doc
|
| Ok. And what is the reasoning behind the change
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 05:46:05PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> The best would probably be do create four rpms. (or three)
>
> ipzone-xforms
> ipzone-qt
> ipzone-common
> ipzone-doc
Ok. And what is the reasoning behind the change of LyX's name into
'ipzone'?
Andre'
--
Those who desire t
Moritz Moeller-Herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Angus Leeming wrote:
|
| > Just a thought. Should we have different names for the qt and xforms
| > executable? People won't be able to install rpms for both otherwise.
|
| Well why would one use both? Traditionalists will use lyx-xforms. All
Angus Leeming wrote:
> Just a thought. Should we have different names for the qt and xforms
> executable? People won't be able to install rpms for both otherwise.
Well why would one use both? Traditionalists will use lyx-xforms. All other
users will probably use lyx-qt. Noone will use both.
It
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 04:12:26PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Just a thought. Should we have different names for the qt and xforms
> executable? People won't be able to install rpms for both otherwise.
>
> At least, I assume that that is the case. Feel free to disabuse me.
We could call it ly
Just a thought. Should we have different names for the qt and xforms
executable? People won't be able to install rpms for both otherwise.
At least, I assume that that is the case. Feel free to disabuse me.
Also, since they (presumably) share the same documentation and indeed
configuration, shou
50 matches
Mail list logo
