Subject: Re: 0.9.3 blocker? -- Re: style => name?
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Sat Sep 08 2001 - 17:56:14 CDT
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Paul Rohr wrote:
> Ick. It just occured to me that this file format change for style
> references (from STYLE to NAME) sounds like a showstopper for 0.9.3.
>
> I don't know when the original change was made, but if it came after 0.9.2,
> then I'd *strongly* recommend that 0.9.3 be held until this gets resolved.
>
> Prior to the change, there was no compatibility code required, and if we
> revert to the original design, then none will be required either -- so long
> as we don't do an "official" binary release with the NAME= variant to the
> file format.
>
> In the future, we need to be a *lot* more explicit about any file format
> changes which might break compatibility.
Paul, it is too late. We already have documents in the wild with a mixture
of "name" and "style". This might be an ancient feature of abiword or it
may have come about at version 0.90. Doing this change now limits the
number of mixed "name" and "style" documents.
However this code is buggy as has been found by Randy and
(already) partially fixed by Tomas. There is case to made for waiting till
all this has shaken out. I think I number strange effects I wasn't sure
about may be fixed by completong this "style" => transition.
So to repeat again for everyone.
At version 0.90 at least we have documents with a mixture of "name" and
"style" in a our file formats. Look at some documents if you don't believe
me.
The change I made fixes this.
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat Sep 08 2001 - 17:56:23 CDT