Hi folks!
I've been unable to keep 10.11 builds going. I'm certain it's
possible, but 10.11 is out of security updates and has been for a bit,
so I don't feel too bad about bumping the lower version to 10.12. I
should be be spending more time getting 10.15 working, not keeping
10.11 working. :)
I’ve pushed some code (and put my fire-suit on).
Cheers,
Jeff.
> On 9 Jul 2019, at 21:10, Jeff Young wrote:
>
> Hmm… now I know why it doesn’t indicate handled for other stuff: it’s
> difficult to get that information back from the coroutine. But I think a bug
> fix I made earlier for the
Hello Nick,
Am 09.07.19 um 21:57 schrieb Nick Østergaard:
> I have a hard time to understand how 5.99 is better to describe a
> development version. 6.00 was already a bad way to describe it.
> People also were confused. To me .99 seems very arbitrary. Why not
> .1234?
simply your mind is
An option could be to prepend the branch name via something like:
git symbolic-ref -q --short HEAD
To the git describe --long we already have.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 21:57, Nick Østergaard wrote:
>
> I have a hard time to understand how 5.99 is better to describe a
> development version. 6.00
Hmm… now I know why it doesn’t indicate handled for other stuff: it’s difficult
to get that information back from the coroutine. But I think a bug fix I made
earlier for the PassEvent stuff may give us a proxy for “handled”.
> On 9 Jul 2019, at 21:07, Jeff Young wrote:
>
> Hi JP,
>
> This
Hi JP,
This code definitely seems to have evolved a bit over time. ProcessEvent()
specifically returns true only if it was a hotkey that was handled, and not for
anything else. But I can’t find any code that benefits from that, so I suspect
it’s vestigial.
I think the best thing to do is to
I have a hard time to understand how 5.99 is better to describe a
development version. 6.00 was already a bad way to describe it. People
also were confused. To me .99 seems very arbitrary. Why not .1234?
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 23:20, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
>
>
>
> ma 8. heinäk. 2019 klo 23.47
Hi Jeff,
Sorry to bother you, but could you have a look into this file, and
especially into void TOOL_DISPATCHER::DispatchWxEvent( wxEvent& aEvent ).
There are 2 things that need fixing (related to key event handling),
because our key event handler has bugs:
1 - the first is related to ESC
ti 9. heinäk. 2019 klo 19.45 Simon Richter (simon.rich...@hogyros.de)
kirjoitti:
> I still think it is a bit confusing to have a tag
> on something that is not a release.
>
"git tag" reveals to me that 5.1.0-dev is already a tag, and it's not a
release. Right?
Eeli Kaikkonen
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 09:26:11AM -0400, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> I'd vote for the .99 approach, assuming I get a vote. :-)
The main difficulty is the way the version number generation is
implemented. We use "git describe" to get the name of the last tag, then
add the number of commits and
Oops, those were supposed to be tool IDs.
I’ve pushed another commit. Let me know if it still doesn’t compile (the LLDB
compiler is much more aggressive about auto-type-casting).
> On 9 Jul 2019, at 16:44, jp charras wrote:
>
> This commit creates 2 similar issues:
> the first issue is:
>
>
This commit creates 2 similar issues:
the first issue is:
F:/kicad-launchpad/git_testing/pcbnew/tools/edit_tool.cpp:1299:24:
error: cannot convert 'const wxString' to 'const string&' {aka 'const
std::__cxx11::basic_string&'}
1299 | frame()->PushTool( _( "Select reference point for the
On 7/8/19 10:41 PM, Reece R. Pollack wrote:
> On 7/8/19 10:36 PM, Kevin Cozens wrote:
>> On 2019-07-08 5:10 p.m., Dino Ghilardi wrote:
>>> think about the linux kernel versioning number scheme: even subversion
>>> number means stable release. Odd subversion number means
>>>
Tom,
On 7/9/19 2:41 AM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
> On 06/07/2019 21:10, Ian McInerney wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> Not to pile on the questions, but does the linux stack trace support
>> exist in the entire 3.0.x line, or how far back does it go? Currently,
>> the minimum version searched by cmake is
14 matches
Mail list logo
