Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
It just turned out that we have a severe cursor misalignment problem with some
classes (beamer, hollywood, foils, slides, and others), see bug
Georg Baum wrote:
Have anyone done any testing on 2243 at all?
I have it in my tree, it works for me, but I have an old dvipng (version
1.5) that works also without the patch. At least this indicates that
there are no regressions.
Bennett has tested it with a recent dvipng version, which
Juergen Spitzmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Georg Baum wrote:
| Have anyone done any testing on 2243 at all?
|
| I have it in my tree, it works for me, but I have an old dvipng (version
| 1.5) that works also without the patch. At least this indicates that
| there are no regressions.
|
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
> 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
It just turned out that we have a severe cursor misalignment problem with some
classes (beamer, hollywood, foils, slides, and others), see bug
Georg Baum wrote:
> > Have anyone done any testing on 2243 at all?
>
> I have it in my tree, it works for me, but I have an old dvipng (version
> 1.5) that works also without the patch. At least this indicates that
> there are no regressions.
Bennett has tested it with a recent dvipng version,
Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Georg Baum wrote:
| > > Have anyone done any testing on 2243 at all?
| >
| > I have it in my tree, it works for me, but I have an old dvipng (version
| > 1.5) that works also without the patch. At least this indicates that
| > there are no
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| At the moment it seems that everyone, without exception, is frustrated by the
| current deadlock.
I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I
continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem
very important
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| At the moment it seems that everyone, without exception, is frustrated
| by the current deadlock.
I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I
continue to see small dribble of work that obviously
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 13:30 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I
continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem
very important for a release.
I believe that this is a big misunderstanding: People do
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 16:01 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| 2251 (well understood and tested)
But only cosmetic. I do not understand why it cannot wait.
Sure it is not so important, but I do not understand why it should wait.
What do you expect to
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 04:01:14PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
| 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
|
| John targetted some bugs to 1.4.0 recently. Of these,
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| At the moment it seems that everyone, without exception, is frustrated by the
| current deadlock.
I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I
continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem
very important
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | At the moment it seems that everyone, without exception, is frustrated
> | by the current deadlock.
>
> I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I
> continue to see small dribble of work that
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 13:30 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I
> continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem
> very important for a release.
I believe that this is a big misunderstanding: People do
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 16:01 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | 2251 (well understood and tested)
>
> But only cosmetic. I do not understand why it cannot wait.
Sure it is not so important, but I do not understand why it should wait.
What do you
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 04:01:14PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
> | > 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
> |
> | John targetted some bugs to 1.4.0 recently.
16 matches
Mail list logo
