Am 18.07.2017 um 05:50 schrieb Miguel Lopez:

Sounds great! I am going to have to get around testing this at some point. By the way, is there anything else missing from earlier versions of Inkscape? The fact that some people still use Inkscape .4 something something confuzzle me, and I have no idea why would they use earlier versions of Inkscape.

I think I can give some input on this, based on what I read on the forums and my own experiences:

- 0.91, 64 bit was unbearably slow on some Windows machines, due to a bug with the rulers, thus people went back to 0.48.5 (not everyone reads release notes) - the layer transform bug in 0.91 and more frequent crashes also prompted people to go back to 0.48.5 (which was /the/ most stable Inkscape release I've ever used - although 0.92.1 comes close, on Linux - but not on Windows, as far as I read.) - the black printing/exporting bug in 0.91 was a big issue for many Windows users - many makers depend on extensions that work with old versions, but have not been updated to work with 0.91 or even 0.92. Some of these issues are related to unit conversion, with exported files being scaled incorrectly. - some people who use text a lot have been confused with the text tool in 0.92 and find it difficult to use, thus go back to 0.91 (I'm one of those, admittedly - I've got some important text-heavy files, that I'm afraid of wrecking when switching to 0.92.1, even though su_v has helped make sure they'll convert correctly. I'm looking forward to Tav's and CR's work on improving usability of the tool.) - the unit conversion has made people feel insecure, fearing they might lose data (heard this rarely, though) - some people need printing on Windows, which doesn't work well for them in 0.91+ - some people still use old Linux distros and get 0.91, or, esp. on Windows, don't know there are newer versions available. Some use macOS, and there's only 0.91 officially available.

Those are the most frequent reasons I hear/read about.

Maren

On 7/17/2017 6:17 PM, Michael Soegtrop via Inkscape-devel wrote:

...

Dear Jabier & Inkscape Team,

I think the Bool LPE updates are ready to merge. I already created a merge request a while ago (MSoegtrop:lpe-bool-hide-operand).

The changes are:

• split bool LPE into bool LPE and cut/trim path LPE
• automatically hide/unhide operand paths
• issue error message if operand paths have wrong type (open/closed)
• LPE works directly on any object for "this" and operand.

I think the changes in the .POT file in

https://gitlab.com/MSoegtrop/inkscape/compare/master...lpe-bool-hide-operand

Jabier mentioned are ok - it was regenerated to add the new strings from my files.

Best regards,

Michael

---

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

---

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel