On Nov 28, 2007 9:21 PM, John Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 7:55 PM, Charles Moad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So should I bother with binary releases for 0.91.0? I assume you
> > meant 0.91.1 below as well.
>
> Yes, I meant 91.1 and yes, we should go ahead with the binary
On Nov 28, 2007 7:55 PM, Charles Moad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So should I bother with binary releases for 0.91.0? I assume you
> meant 0.91.1 below as well.
Yes, I meant 91.1 and yes, we should go ahead with the binary
releases. The only way we can find any bugs in the current release,
incl
So should I bother with binary releases for 0.91.0? I assume you
meant 0.91.1 below as well.
- Charlie
On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:34 PM, John Hunter wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 2:21 PM, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I suppose this was bound to happen...
>>
>> The released version h
On Nov 28, 2007 2:21 PM, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suppose this was bound to happen...
>
> The released version has a bug that prevents using the (serif) STIX
> fonts. Entirely my fault for not checking all font possibilities after
> a recent change.
>
> r4492 fixes this bu
I suppose this was bound to happen...
The released version has a bug that prevents using the (serif) STIX
fonts. Entirely my fault for not checking all font possibilities after
a recent change.
r4492 fixes this bug.
Let me know how you want to proceed... I'm happy to help cutting
another relea
