LyX 2.4.0

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 07:59:10AM +0100, Daniel wrote:
> On 2021-12-12 15:18, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 02:55:51PM +0100, Daniel wrote:
> > > On 2021-12-10 06:52, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > > > On 12/9/21 03:00, Daniel wrote:
> > > > > On 2021-12-07 23:04, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/6/21 22:00, Daniel wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2021-12-06 22:58, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Do you mean by "safe enough to include" that they
> > > > > > > > > should be more or less done? For example, there were
> > > > > > > > > a couple of tickets where you said that you take a
> > > > > > > > > look at while there were things that needed to be
> > > > > > > > > done still. I take it that this is not going to
> > > > > > > > > happen, right?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Safe as in: Not likely to cause bugs we need to solve
> > > > > > > > before the release. Once we hit beta, we are in
> > > > > > > > bug-fixing mode, and the fewer the better.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Riki
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Okay. (Though it is not what I have expected beta to be. I
> > > > > > > would have thought that software in beta is actually
> > > > > > > "likely" to have bug rather than unlikely. I would have
> > > > > > > thought the latter is release candidate.)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Well, we know beta will have bugs---indeed, we know of some
> > > > > > already---but the idea is that we do our best not to create new
> > > > > > bugs at that point. New features bring new bugs. That's why beta
> > > > > > release goes with feature freeze.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That said, at the moment we're talking about what will make it
> > > > > > into beta, so some risk is all right.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Riki
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have to do the tickets one by one. Should I post them here (with
> > > > > reference) on the list, create a (temporary) meta bug with the list
> > > > > of tickets, or just ping you on the tickets themselves?
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe assemble a list of them, and then post it here. I'll see it, I hope!
> > > > 
> > > > You could also add a 'triage' keyword to the bugs themselves. I've used
> > > > that for this kind of purpose.
> > > > 
> > > > Riki
> > > 
> > > Here is a list of enhancements with milestone 2.4.0 and patches. I guess it
> > > is worthwhile to go though them anyway and either apply or re-target them:
> > > 
> > > https://www.lyx.org/trac/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&description=~&reporter=~&summary=~&milestone=2.4.0&keywords=~patch&type=enhancement&col=id&col=summary&col=keywords&col=reporter&col=status&col=type&col=severity&desc=1&order=id
> > 
> > Thanks, Daniel. I will try to find time to take a look at one or two of
> > those next week.
> > 
> > > I will not manage to do more than give you this list. Maybe you just ask me
> > > if something is unclear that seems more efficient since you will look at
> > > them carefully anyway? I could also give more info on them but that is as
> > > much as I can do for this weekend. (Maybe I missed the road map but some
> > > warning would have been helpful a bit in advance.
> > 
> > This release cycle is a bit crazy due to unusual circumstances. At this
> > point I think the idea for 2.4.0 is to "get it out" without being as
> > careful or methodical as we usually are. That is just my opinion though.
> > 
> > That said, I can understand your frustration since you've put in so much
> > work and you have not gotten timely reviews and it would be a shame not
> > to see a lot of your work in 2.4.0. All I can say is "thank you"
> > sincerely for your work and "I'm sorry" for not helping with reviewing
> > your patches.
> > 
> > > I guess it was
> > > communicated on some internal list.)
> > 
> > Nothing on the internal list. The internal list is rarely used and
> > certainly not for release-related issues.
> > 
> > Scott
> Thanks. That is all fine. No worries!
> 
> As far as I understand how it works with LyX development currently is that
> people work more or less on their own on things they have a rather good grip
> of with only minor reviews (because of time/priorities/interest). I often
> have quite unfinished patches, especially when it comes to new features
> because of my limited programming knowledge (e.g. I never got my head around
> creating lyx2lyx when a file format change is involved even though people
> keep telling me how easy it is) and because I don't want to spend too much
> time on something people might not like or that I will have to do partly
> again because someone else's patch interferes (and I am not particularly
> good with git either). So, my expectations concerning my patches are
> naturally low (though I sometimes get carried away if I like something).
> 
> All I wanted to do is explain why things are as they are from my side and
> lower the risk a bit that a feature patch that might actually be a good idea
> for 2.4.0 gets just overlooked.

That all makes sense. Thanks, Daniel!

Scott
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.lyx.org/pipermail/lyx-devel/attachments/20211213/447aebc4/attachment-0001.asc>