Sender | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
2 Jan 2023 | ||
03:38:33 | ||
13 Jan 2023 | ||
hmenke: Hi henri, for several reasons I'd like to make pgf-tikz release a new version in maybe next 2--3 weeks. What are the most important PRs and issues you think must be merged/resolved before the next release? #1116 is on the list, I infer. To list some reasons:
| 12:58:40 | |
* hmenke: Hi henri, for several reasons I'd like to make pgf-tikz release a new version in maybe next 2--3 weeks. What are the most important PRs and issues you think must be merged/resolved before the next release? #1116 is on the list, I infer. To list some reasons:
| 12:59:01 | |
We can make a release immediately. | 12:59:56 | |
I just don't want to merge any more PRs before #1116 isn | 13:00:14 | |
* I just don't want to merge any more PRs before #1116 isn't finished. | 13:00:18 | |
It's been too long hence the workflow log for #1116 has been deleted (by github). I'll push a dummy commit to trigger the workflow, and find what I can help in this weekend. | 13:15:28 | |
Triggered by force pushing rebased hmenke:l3build . | 13:33:36 | |
muzimuzhi: First thing that has to be done is extracting the graphdrawing examples from the Lua files. | 14:20:27 | |
After that it's just a whole lot of refactoring. | 14:20:41 | |
Also something is wrong with ltxdoc again. | 14:22:11 | |
https://github.com/hmenke/pgf/actions/runs/3911624345/jobs/6685225704#step:6:2752 | 14:22:12 | |
| 14:22:23 | |
*
| 14:22:42 | |
Once of a time (when working on #1172) I considered achieving this by patching | 14:24:43 | |
In reply to @muzzi:matrix.orgThat would probably work, but this unfortunately loses all comment lines. | 14:26:47 | |
But you're right, patching codeexample is likely more robust than trying to parse LaTeX from Lua. | 14:27:29 | |
On the other hand any file operations are just much easier in Lua (copying, moving, etc.) | 14:27:51 | |
In reply to @hmenke:matrix.orgHmm I observed that (after force pushing to #1116) as well but didn't had the time to check. If my remember is right, latex2e had reverted def of \cs recent. Will dig this first. | 14:28:18 | |
In reply to @hmenke:matrix.orgAh, yes. and sigh | 14:28:48 | |
In reply to @muzzi:matrix.orgThat could also be patched back in, though. Losing comment lines is intentional right now. | 14:29:48 | |
https://github.com/latex3/latex2e/issues/962 | 14:30:47 | |
Having no idea why the use in pgfmanual worked before. | 14:31:49 | |
Thanks! Seems to not have landed in TeX Live, yet. | 14:31:49 | |
Maybe the use of \cs{...} should be replaced by |...| . | 14:32:26 | |
In reply to @hmenke:matrix.orgYes it's landed in LaTeX2e <2022-11-01> patch level 1 . latex2e keeps issued fixed but not released open and adds fixed in dev label, so any closed issue is "released". | 14:34:50 | |
In reply to @hmenke:matrix.org* Yes it's landed in LaTeX2e <2022-11-01> patch level 1 . latex2e keeps issues fixed but not released open and adds fixed in dev label, so any closed issue is "released". | 14:35:05 | |
In reply to @hmenke:matrix.orgI'd rather redefine \cs in pgfmanual-macros.tex (might not be the right file name). | 14:37:00 | |
It's only ever used in doc/generic/pgf/pgfmanual-en-base-shadings.tex , so I'm going with removing \cs . | 14:37:30 | |
Partly because ltxdoc might still change \cs in the future. The current reverting is just a temp compromise. | 14:37:56 |