On the way :-)
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:34:39PM +0200, Evgeny Stambulchik wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Hence, I can conclude that the one-line patch you prepared fixes the
bug: please apply it to the official 5.1.x branch.
Did just some minutes before receiving this email ;-)
Thanks
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:51:44 +0200 Evgeny Stambulchik wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Setting the tick label format to something different from general
may, in some cases, cause the zero tick label to be very close, but
not exactly equal to zero.
[...]
A patch is attached.
Doesn't the
Francesco Poli wrote:
Hence, I can conclude that the one-line patch you prepared fixes the
bug: please apply it to the official 5.1.x branch.
Did just some minutes before receiving this email ;-)
Thanks for investigating the issue! :)
For the Debian package maintainer: if a new official
Francesco Poli wrote:
Setting the tick label format to something different from general may,
in some cases, cause the zero tick label to be very close, but not
exactly equal to zero.
[...]
A patch is attached.
Doesn't the following one-liner suffice?
@@ -785,7 +785,7 @@ reenter:
Package: grace
Version: 1:5.1.18-1
Severity: normal
Hi!
Setting the tick label format to something different from general may,
in some cases, cause the zero tick label to be very close, but not
exactly equal to zero.
As a result, what should really be, say, 0.0e+00 (assuming, for
instance, that
5 matches
Mail list logo