Fwd: [Review requested] New DocBook layout parameter

[Thibaut Cuvelier]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 at 05:17, Richard Kimberly Heck <rikiheck at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 12/26/22 21:27, Thibaut Cuvelier wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 at 03:11, Richard Kimberly Heck <rikiheck at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/22 20:01, Thibaut Cuvelier wrote:
>>
>> Riki, let me know :)!
>>
>> In another email, I said:
>>
>> I am planning to do the tarball tomorrow, so I guess the question is
>> whether these changes can be **completed** by then. Since they don't
>> affect really core code, I'm not too worried about them being mature yet.
>>
>> So if you think this is really done, go ahead. If you're not sure, then
>> let's wait.
>>
> I don't know what I could add or remove. The tests pass and I manually
> checked that the new behaviour is the expected one.
>
>> I'm attaching a new version of the patch with the updated layout2layout
>> script (including a change for layout version 98 that was skipped, if I
>> understand correctly). There is also a second patch that updates the
>> layouts.
>>
>> That's a bit confusing. You just need to handle up to format 98. It's the
>> OLD format number that's being tested in those conditions. So you want if
>> 87 <= format <= 98.
>>
> I misunderstood the script, then! I fixed that locally.
>
>> That said, are we sure there's nothing to do here? Suppose someone has a
>> custom layout for some remark-like construction. Do we just want to leave
>> that as is?
>>
> Since it's an extension of features that have never been released (apart
> from alphas and betas), I don't think there are many such layouts; I
> suppose that these users will have a look at the final set of features when
> 2.4 is out. Even if there were, I really don't know what I could do: even
> if the custom layout is a new theorem-like environment, maybe the user is
> completely OK with what they currently have (maybe they have a wrapper tag
> that does what they want, or they don't care about wrapper tags at all).
> The only conversion that would be mostly safe is detecting the pattern I
> was using in the layout files, which is maybe too specific.
>
> OK, then. Go ahead and commit.
>
Done, thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lyx.org/pipermail/lyx-devel/attachments/20221227/466b121c/attachment.html>