On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:34:28 +0900
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:28:44 -0500 Christopher Michael
> said:
>
> > On 11/11/11 21:49, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:00:23 -0500 Christopher
> > > Michael said:
> > >
> > >> On 1
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 07:53:02 +0100 (CET) Vincent Torri
said:
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:08:09 -0500 Christopher Michael
> > said:
> >
> >> On 11/11/11 19:54, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
> >>> Log:
> >>> back to unsigned long. c
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:08:09 -0500 Christopher Michael
>
> said:
>
>> On 11/11/11 19:54, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
>>> Log:
>>> back to unsigned long. code was actually correct as-is.
>>>
>> If that's actually correct, then the 'fix
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Christopher Michael wrote:
> On 11/11/11 19:54, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
>> Log:
>> back to unsigned long. code was actually correct as-is.
>>
> If that's actually correct, then the 'fix' for the xcb version should be
> reverted also ;)
so, as I said, the last argument of t
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:28:44 -0500 Christopher Michael
said:
> On 11/11/11 21:49, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:00:23 -0500 Christopher
> > Michael said:
> >
> >> On 11/11/11 20:42, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:08:09 -05
On 11/11/11 21:49, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:00:23 -0500 Christopher Michael
> said:
>
>> On 11/11/11 20:42, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:08:09 -0500 Christopher
>>> Michael said:
>>>
On 11/11/11 19:54, Enlightenment
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:00:23 -0500 Christopher Michael
said:
> On 11/11/11 20:42, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:08:09 -0500 Christopher
> > Michael said:
> >
> >> On 11/11/11 19:54, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
> >>> Log:
> >>> back to unsigned long. code was actu
On 11/11/11 20:42, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:08:09 -0500 Christopher Michael
> said:
>
>> On 11/11/11 19:54, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
>>> Log:
>>> back to unsigned long. code was actually correct as-is.
>>>
>> If that's actually correct, then the 'fix' for the
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:08:09 -0500 Christopher Michael
said:
> On 11/11/11 19:54, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
> > Log:
> > back to unsigned long. code was actually correct as-is.
> >
> If that's actually correct, then the 'fix' for the xcb version should be
> reverted also ;)
yeah found it. fixed
On 11/11/11 19:54, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
> Log:
> back to unsigned long. code was actually correct as-is.
>
If that's actually correct, then the 'fix' for the xcb version should be
reverted also ;)
dh
>
>
> Author: raster
> Date: 2011-11-11 16:54:22 -0800 (Fri, 11 Nov 2011)
> Ne
On Tue, 3 May 2011 11:54:31 +0200 (CEST) Vincent Torri
said:
i was sitting in a text console without x. i havent written the changelog yet.
>
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2011, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
>
> > Log:
> > fix segv! wow. data was null.
>
> are you sure that you'll be able to find all the fix
On Tue, 3 May 2011, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
> Log:
> fix segv! wow. data was null.
are you sure that you'll be able to find all the fixes that need o be
back ported to 1.0 ??
Vincent
>
>
>
> Author: raster
> Date: 2011-05-03 02:46:55 -0700 (Tue, 03 May 2011)
> New Revision: 59
On 03/31/2011 06:36 AM, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
> Log:
> ahem! who put unused there? who? screen *IS* used!
>
For once, it wasn't me ;)
Disco Stu
dh
>
> Author: raster
> Date: 2011-03-31 03:36:20 -0700 (Thu, 31 Mar 2011)
> New Revision: 58224
> Trac: http://trac.enli
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Peter Johnson wrote:
> Ping?
>
> Would it be more convenient to send the patch and test programs directly to
> the list? (I know people usually do this, but since it's a number of files, I
> figured it might be cumbersome.)
Sorry! I did forget about it :-(
I com
Ping?
Would it be more convenient to send the patch and test programs directly to
the list? (I know people usually do this, but since it's a number of files, I
figured it might be cumbersome.)
pete
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 09:51:01PM -0500, Peter Johnson wrote:
> Here's a tarball containing a pr
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:11:35 -0300 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
said:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Vincent Torri wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:23:19 -0300 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> >> said:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, F
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:23:19 -0300 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
>> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Carsten Haitzler
>>> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:23:19 -0300 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> said:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Carsten Haitzler
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:01:02 -0300 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
>>> said:
>>>
>>> because eina_lo
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:23:19 -0300 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
said:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Carsten Haitzler
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:01:02 -0300 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> > said:
> >
> > because eina_log doesnt do what i want. i'm busy tracking down issues not
> > trying t
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:01:02 -0300 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> said:
>
> because eina_log doesnt do what i want. i'm busy tracking down issues not
> trying to get a gold star for using eina (which doesnt do what i want - i DONT
> want any
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:01:02 -0300 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
said:
because eina_log doesnt do what i want. i'm busy tracking down issues not
trying to get a gold star for using eina (which doesnt do what i want - i DONT
want any code there if its turned off - no fn call - nothing, but i also dont
Here's a tarball containing a prospective patch and a few commented test
programs:
http://tam.hiddenrock.com/eina-log-default.tar.gz
I haven't yet updated the documentation because I'm not entirely convinced
it's correct, but I'm not sure why, so I'd like a few second pairs of eyes on
it. Th
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Enlightenment SVN
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Log:
>>> add lots of logging functions - for trackign x overhead when u cant get
>>> symbols... booo! - disabled
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Peter Johnson wrote:
> Cool, thanks.
>
> My reading of those pages indicates that, were I to follow the recommendations
> contained therein, I would always use the EINA_LOG_DOM_*() macros and never
> the EINA_LOG_*() macros, because they use EINA_LOG_DOMAIN_GLOBAL,
Cool, thanks.
My reading of those pages indicates that, were I to follow the recommendations
contained therein, I would always use the EINA_LOG_DOM_*() macros and never
the EINA_LOG_*() macros, because they use EINA_LOG_DOMAIN_GLOBAL, and as a
good developer I should have my own domain(s) for my p
> really, there is already logging infrastructure there in ecore-x, if
> he wants another "domain", just create a new one and name macros
> differently, but use the standards and let's not require people to
> change private.h to define or not the debug :-/
Where is this documented?
-
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Enlightenment SVN
wrote:
Log:
add lots of logging functions - for trackign x overhead when u cant get
symbols... booo! - disabled of course.
damn raster, if you take so much time to do all this work, wh
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Peter Johnson wrote:
>
>>> really, there is already logging infrastructure there in ecore-x, if
>>> he wants another "domain", just create a new one and name macros
>>> differently, but use the standards and let's not req
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Peter Johnson wrote:
>> really, there is already logging infrastructure there in ecore-x, if
>> he wants another "domain", just create a new one and name macros
>> differently, but use the standards and let's not require people to
>> change private.h to define or not the deb
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Enlightenment SVN
wrote:
> Log:
> add lots of logging functions - for trackign x overhead when u cant get
> symbols... booo! - disabled of course.
damn raster, if you take so much time to do all this work, why don't
you take 5 minutes more to check out eina's lo
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:36:19 -0200 Fabiano Fidêncio
said:
fixed. i got myself some xi2 headers now.
> Hello, Raster.
>
> ecore_x_events.c has some troubles here. :-(.
> The output log is attached.
>
> []'s
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Enlightenment SVN <
> no-re...@enlightenment.org>
Hello, Raster.
ecore_x_events.c has some troubles here. :-(.
The output log is attached.
[]'s
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Enlightenment SVN <
no-re...@enlightenment.org> wrote:
> Log:
> opcode -> _ecore_x_xi2_opcode
>
> Author: raster
> Date: 2010-01-16 17:33:43 -0800 (Sat,
32 matches
Mail list logo
