[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUCTeX] First try at the Biber support merge

From: Philip Kime
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX] First try at the Biber support merge
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:07:10 +0200

Many thanks for looking at this. It's hard to tell from the patches if they are 
right - some people will have to install and test it. Can I just pull this from 
the CVS head? One thing to note is that many users of biblatex 2.0 will want to 

(setq LaTeX-always-use-Biber t)

Since biber is the default backend as of version 2.0 of biblatex and most of 
the really important features are biber only in 2.0.


On 21 Jul 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ken Brown wrote:

> Hi Tassilo,
> On 7/20/2012 7:26 PM, Tassilo Horn wrote:
>> Ken Brown <address@hidden> writes:
>> Hi Ken,
>>>> My main problem when compiling that patch was that there were a lot
>>>> of differences between Philips files and the AUCTeX CVS version that
>>>> didn't look Biber-related.  Maybe that were general improvements and
>>>> fixes of the AUCTeX code, or maybe it was just an older AUCTeX
>>>> version he worked on.  Since I couldn't judge that, I preferred the
>>>> stock AUCTeX versions in those cases.
>>> My impression is that Philip's files were based on auctex-11.86, but
>>> he could confirm.  Based on that assumption, I did a 3-way merge
>>> (using diff3) of Philip's files and CVS head, using auctex-11.86 as
>>> common ancestor.  My patches are different from yours in a few places.
>> Awesome, I guess your results will probably be more accurate than mine.
>>> I don't want to waste everyone's time, so I'll do a little testing
>>> before sending my patches to the list.
> My version works for me, so I'm attaching it in two forms; one is a unified 
> diff, which I find easier to read, and the other is in the same format as 
> yours, so you can more easily see where it differs.
> Philip did confirm in private mail that his patches were based on 11.86.  I 
> hope he can take a quick look and see if what I did seems right.
> Ken
> <biber-merge-2nd-try.patch><biber-merge-2nd-try-unified.patch>

Dr Philip Kime

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]