DocBook v2

Thibaut Cuvelier tcuvelier at lyx.org
Wed Sep 2 13:35:01 UTC 2020


On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 16:32, Scott Kostyshak <skostysh at lyx.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:50:38PM -0400, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > On 8/31/20 6:27 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > Also, the fixes to regressions
> > > might be invasive, so why not just fix them before having a big review
> > > instead of having multiple rounds of reviews and testing and fixes on
> > > master?
> >
> > I think this depends upon what the regression is exactly. Of course,
> > that can be determined by looking carefully at the test results. But
> > it's a different question when it's time to do that. I'd let the code
> > settle, and then when Thibaut thinks we're ready to merge, *then* we
> > should start running tests and look carefully at the results.
>
> That works. So do review, then run tests, then merge. I think partly it
> depends on what Thibaut thinks would be the most useful to his workflow
> so that's why I asked when he would prefer. Personally if I did not
> expect my code to break any tests and it did I would want to figure out
> why the tests broke. On the other hand, if I did expect my code to break
> tests (e.g., the output was not correct before anyway), then perhaps
> they would not be that useful. But I can understand why others would
> prefer to get a review and then do the tests.
>

Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion on this. I don't know how hard it
will be to fix all failing tests (I did not yet have a look at them all),
but I hope that they will not be too hard to fix. A large part of the
modifications in this second DocBook round are just very small fixes to one
part or another for one particular kind of document that has a problem.

The last "large" commit (with a few scattered changes) should be:
e43d749aff6bcef69af7f43487fa07a955fe6ac4
DocBook: generate <partintro> when required. Thibaut Cuvelier 30-Aug-20 1:14


> > > Further, even if only the docbook tests are failing, the
> > > underlying regressions could affect other parts of the LyX code (our
> > > ctests have only small coverage in my opinion).
> >
> > Assuming Thibaut is only touching DocBook-related routines, it's
> > probably only XHTML export that would be affected. Which matters, but,
> > as I said, much of this may be an improvement.
>
> Sounds good
>

Unlike the first round of DocBook patches, this one should not really have
an impact on XHTML. I have added a few things to the common XMLStream, but
these changes are really small compared to the introduction of XMLStream.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lyx.org/pipermail/lyx-devel/attachments/20200902/2f8e59e6/attachment.html>


More information about the lyx-devel mailing list