On 30 Oct 2005, at 4:51 PM, Rolf Schmolling wrote:
> no stability problems with latest bult (29102005)
> Small, mere cosmetic: in previous builts (I cannot remember in
> which this appeared first) I had to add a field "rating" to
> defaults to get the corresponding field in the editor etc.
> NOW I have two of them in the prefpane defaults, I can mark them
> but cannot erase them, the "-" button is greyed out.
Ah, sorry. That is of course the danger of alpha testing (I think
none of the versions, including the latest, by themselves could have
given these problems, but the combination of versions could have done
this). I guess now the only thing you can do is dig into the prefs
file (ask if you don't know what to do).
> Am 30.10.2005 um 03:48 schrieb Jeffrey Johnson:
>> On Oct 29, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>> Have those of you who have been testing the nightly builds
>>> noticed any stability problems (crashing etc.)? The current
>>> release (1.1.7) has an editor crashing bug, and is broken on Jaguar.
>>> Both of those issues are awkward at the moment, as 1.1.7 is
>>> slated to ship on a TeX DVD <http://www.tug.org/texcollection/
>>> index.html> (with a Monday deadline for adding stuff). The
>>> question I have is whether our current nightly builds are an
>>> improvement over 1.1.7, in general.
>>> Also, if anyone who has been using the nightly builds wants to
>>> take a stab at documenting the new features, that would be
>>> great. If Christiaan and I end up writing it all, it will be
>>> from a developer's perspective, which isn't necessarily helpful
>>> to users.
>> I've used most of the 1.1.8 alphas, and I've never experienced a
>> crash with them. I feel comfortable enough to use them as my
>> exclusive working versions: there has been absolutely no data
>> corruption. (I do backups anyway, of course.) All of my reported
>> bugs have been fixed in 1.1.8a (v119). It's not perfect (I'm
>> still not a fan of the groups pane interface), but I'd say it's
>> definitely an improvement over 1.1.7.