mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Philippe Joyez <address@hidden>]

> a) is it really a new  version  and version number is 145=10145

It's most likely the latest version at the time of compilation but the
numbering scheme is not related to the code repository which is still only
at rev 10006.


> b) can we expect a windows compilation in a reasonable time

Well it depends what you deem reasonable... Anyway if you can't wait you can
compile it on your own; it's definitely feasible (instructions are on the
website) and I can assist you if you need. And it could be a first step in
perhaps trying to fix things...

> c) can i expect to find some improvements on the version on the issues i
> describe

You can find what was improved since the version you presently use by
browsing the repository (or just the changelog file also in the repository,
if it has already been updated). I'm afraid you could be disapointed, though.
I'm sure you realize that bug fixing is something that just does not happen
spontaneously... For things you consider broken, you should check if the bug
is already reported in the bug tracker, and if not, you should fill in a
well-documented bug report with sample documents, steps to reproduce, etc,
so that the developers get a chance of being aware of a problem. Even then,
keep in mind that the number of active developpers is really small and that
they will eventually fix bugs on which they feel competent when it becomes
important for them or compatible with *their own schedule*... The bottom
line is that a lot of bugs do get squashed but not necessarily those that
are of most concern to you, and, saddly, some bugs stay around for a very
long time before being addressed. But any good will is more than welcome.  

Now it seems part of your problems are with plugins. Many plugins were
contributed by someone who was interested in interfacing texmacs with an
external program. If the contributor loses interest and does not maintain
it, the plugin eventually becomes incompatible with newer versions of the
program, until someone with enough knowledge on that particular system picks
it up because he/she nees it and fixes it (as you managed to do for octave -
good job btw!).


> d) is this the 2.00 version that has been cited in the past
The actual number will not make any concrete difference, you know. There is
no brand new version secretly developed behind curtains!

best,
Philippe