« first day (156 days earlier)      last day (403 days later) » 

cfr
1:42 AM
For plast:
%% Copyright 2016 Clea F. Rees
%
% This work may be distributed and/or modified under the
% conditions of the LaTeX Project Public License, either version 1.3
% of this license or (at your option) any later version.
% The latest version of this license is in
%   latex-project.org/lppl.txt
% and version 1.3 or later is part of all distributions of LaTeX
% version 2005/12/01 or later.
%
% This work has the LPPL maintenance status `maintained'.
%
% The Current Maintainer of this work is Clea F. Rees.
 
 
11 hours later…
cfr
12:26 PM
@SašoŽivanović Is an rc version of 2.0.3 available on GitHub? plast cannot compile my answer with 2.0.2. Or can you tell me how to fix the programmatic-node-naming bug on-the-fly?
@SašoŽivanović I've suggested plast post a comment here if possible, but I think more reputation may be needed for the system to allow that. (I have a vague memory that you need 20 points and plast has 15 right now.) So pinging plast from here probably won't work, but pinging from the comments on my answer with @plast should work.
 
1:07 PM
Hello @SašoŽivanović. I am the user @cfr was referring to. I've downloaded the 2.0.0 release from github but I do not know how to compile it.
Is there any way I could download the release .sty of Forest 2.0.0?
 
 
6 hours later…
cfr
7:31 PM
@plast As a quick solution, you can just rename the .dtx file to .sty and it should work. Otherwise, you can compile the .dtx file with latex, I think.
@plast And excellent - you could post here! Hopefully Sašo will check here soon ;).
 
 
2 hours later…
9:27 PM
@cfr Thanks for that fix. However when I apply just= to one of my forest nodes my build breaks.
 
cfr
9:43 PM
@plast Sorry. It was really a guess. Various things change and then it is hard to go back to earlier versions (of Forest, of TikZ, of justtrees). I think the real solution is to get a copy of 2.0.3 or a release candidate for it. (Definitely works with rc5.) But I don't know where to direct you for that....
 
@cfr It is ok. I really appreciate all your help!
 

« first day (156 days earlier)      last day (403 days later) »