Hi etrunko,
While I am not against this commit, I do feel that it is slightly
incomplete ... in that there is no "@since" added for this function :/
dh
On 26/03/13 18:51, Eduardo Lima - Enlightenment Git (Etrunko) wrote:
> etrunko pushed a commit to branch master.
>
> commit 19561c611250352df5b
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 26/03/13 16:17, Daniel Juyung Seo - Enlightenment Git wrote:
>> seoz pushed a commit to branch master.
>>
>> commit 67f0f9eae1eaae2002e9ed7407b99a10c4f76854
>> Author: Daniel Juyung Seo
>> Date: Wed Mar 27 01:17:18 2013 +0900
>>
>> e
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Daniel Willmann wrote:
> On 26/03/13 15:42, Bruno Dilly wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Daniel Willmann
>> wrote:
>>> On 26/03/13 15:27, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Daniel Willmann
>>
wrote:
> Hey,
>
>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Gustavo Lima Chaves
wrote:
> * Rafael Antognolli [2013-03-26 13:34:01 -0300]:
>
>> Hello Daniel,
>>
>> I am not sure they are supported now. When I needed them a while ago,
>> I remember that he only available callbacks that also did the job,
>> were being trigger
* Rafael Antognolli [2013-03-26 13:34:01 -0300]:
> Hello Daniel,
>
> I am not sure they are supported now. When I needed them a while ago,
> I remember that he only available callbacks that also did the job,
> were being triggered by other events, like when you highlight an item
> by walking thr
On 26/03/13 15:42, Bruno Dilly wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Daniel Willmann
> wrote:
>> On 26/03/13 15:27, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Daniel Willmann
>
>>> wrote:
Hey,
On 25/03/13 19:51, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> There wasn't a
Hello Daniel,
I am not sure they are supported now. When I needed them a while ago,
I remember that he only available callbacks that also did the job,
were being triggered by other events, like when you highlight an item
by walking through the list with keyboard/focus. This wasn't the
intended beh
On 26/03/13 16:17, Daniel Juyung Seo - Enlightenment Git wrote:
> seoz pushed a commit to branch master.
>
> commit 67f0f9eae1eaae2002e9ed7407b99a10c4f76854
> Author: Daniel Juyung Seo
> Date: Wed Mar 27 01:17:18 2013 +0900
>
> elm_genlist.c: fixed formatting.
> ---
> src/lib/elm_genlist.
On 26/03/13 15:56, Daniel Willmann wrote:
> On 26/03/13 15:41, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:38:21 +
>> Daniel Willmann wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/03/13 15:27, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
Again, please remove this branch. For me it's also fine to plain
remove the repos
On 26/03/13 15:58, Kim Woelders wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:59:46 +0100, Daniel Willmann
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 26/03/13 10:41, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>>> On 26/03/13 10:32, Kim Woelders wrote:
>>
However, I have been adding (simple) tags for a number of release
commits, but it lo
Hello, I think these smart callbacks are already supported with the
different names.
"highlighted" and "unhighlighted"
So it looks like redundant.
Glima and Flavio Ceolin, how do you think?
Daniel Juyung Seo (SeoZ)
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Flavio Ceolin - Enlightenment Git
wrote:
> glima
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:05:41 -0300
Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Michael Blumenkrantz
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:47:33 -0300
> > Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Blumenkrantz
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 1
On 26/03/13 16:01, Bruno Dilly wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Daniel Willmann
> wrote:
>> On 26/03/13 15:41, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:38:21 +
>>> Daniel Willmann wrote:
>>>
On 26/03/13 15:27, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>
> Again, please remove t
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Michael Blumenkrantz
wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:47:33 -0300
> Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Blumenkrantz
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:38:21 +
>> > Daniel Willmann wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 26/03/13 15:27, Luc
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Daniel Willmann
wrote:
> On 26/03/13 15:41, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:38:21 +
>> Daniel Willmann wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/03/13 15:27, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
Again, please remove this branch. For me it's also fine to plain
r
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:59:46 +0100, Daniel Willmann
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 26/03/13 10:41, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>> On 26/03/13 10:32, Kim Woelders wrote:
>
>>> However, I have been adding (simple) tags for a number of release
>>> commits, but it looks like I'm not allowed to push them:
>>> $ git
On 26/03/13 15:41, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:38:21 +
> Daniel Willmann wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/13 15:27, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>> Again, please remove this branch. For me it's also fine to plain
>>> remove the repository.
>>
>> That is completely fine with me. Will
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:47:33 -0300
Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Blumenkrantz
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:38:21 +
> > Daniel Willmann wrote:
> >
> >> On 26/03/13 15:27, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Daniel Willman
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Blumenkrantz
wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:38:21 +
> Daniel Willmann wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/13 15:27, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Daniel Willmann
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hey,
>> >>
>> >> On 25/03/13 19:51, Lucas De Marchi w
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Daniel Willmann
wrote:
> On 26/03/13 15:27, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Daniel Willmann
>> wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> On 25/03/13 19:51, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>>
There wasn't any edbus release. It seems it was wrongly tagged as
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:38:21 +
Daniel Willmann wrote:
> On 26/03/13 15:27, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Daniel Willmann
> > wrote:
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> On 25/03/13 19:51, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> >>
> >>> There wasn't any edbus release. It seems it was wrongly t
On 26/03/13 15:27, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Daniel Willmann
> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> On 25/03/13 19:51, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>
>>> There wasn't any edbus release. It seems it was wrongly tagged as 1.7.
>>> Please remove the tag in
>>> http://git.enlightenment.org/
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Lucas De Marchi
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Daniel Willmann
> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> On 25/03/13 19:51, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>
>>> There wasn't any edbus release. It seems it was wrongly tagged as 1.7.
>>> Please remove the tag in
>>> http://git.e
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Daniel Willmann wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On 25/03/13 19:51, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
>> There wasn't any edbus release. It seems it was wrongly tagged as 1.7.
>> Please remove the tag in
>> http://git.enlightenment.org/legacy/edbus.git/
>
> That's not a tag, but a branch.
Hello,
On 26/03/13 10:41, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 26/03/13 10:32, Kim Woelders wrote:
>> However, I have been adding (simple) tags for a number of release
>> commits, but it looks like I'm not allowed to push them:
>> $ git push --tags
>> Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
>> remote: C refs/ta
On 26/03/13 08:46, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 25/03/13 19:51, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> There wasn't any edbus release. It seems it was wrongly tagged as 1.7.
>> Please remove the tag in
>> http://git.enlightenment.org/legacy/edbus.git/
>>
>> Also I think legacy/e_dbus should have its descr
Is there any particular reason why there should be an *annotated* tag?
I have been making releases of e16 for quite some years now where the
commit bumping the version number for release simply has the version as
commit message, and IMO that is just fine.
However, I have been adding (simple) t
On 26/03/13 10:32, Kim Woelders wrote:
> Is there any particular reason why there should be an *annotated* tag?
> I have been making releases of e16 for quite some years now where the
> commit bumping the version number for release simply has the version as
> commit message, and IMO that is just fi
Hey,
On 25/03/13 19:51, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> There wasn't any edbus release. It seems it was wrongly tagged as 1.7.
> Please remove the tag in
> http://git.enlightenment.org/legacy/edbus.git/
That's not a tag, but a branch. As this repository is needed solely for
the 1.7.x release (1.8 will
Is this a release? If so, could you tag (annotated one) it?
git tag -a
Cheers,
Tom.
On 26/03/13 09:49, Kim Woelders - Enlightenment Git wrote:
> kwo pushed a commit to branch master.
>
> commit 861ca487c415e5139a420cadf80ce947c414c807
> Author: Kim Woelders
> Date: Tue Mar 26 07:19:59 2013 +0
On 25/03/13 19:51, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> Hey,
>
> There wasn't any edbus release. It seems it was wrongly tagged as 1.7.
> Please remove the tag in
> http://git.enlightenment.org/legacy/edbus.git/
>
> Also I think legacy/e_dbus should have its description like the other
> libraries or maybe "Leg
31 matches
Mail list logo
