Hi James,
Elliot's patch basically has the same effect as undoing the patch
suggested to fix bug #98380 and applied as part of the patches for
#102756. I think that the #98380 patches should be undone and a
different way to accommodate the needs of #98380 should be found -
possibly using an ad
On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 04:41, James Henstridge wrote:
> For 2.0, it is probably a good idea to apply your patch, since it seems
> to fix some problems and looks basically correct. It would be good to
> hear what some other people think about the patch though (some of the
> Ximian guys in particu
Elliot Lee wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Elliot Lee wrote:
The problem is that pygdk_block_threads assumes that an accompanying
pygdk_unblock_threads has previously been called, when in fact it hasn't.
This can happen in situations when a thread calls a non-thread-wrapped gtk
function that emi
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:16:05PM -0400, Elliot Lee wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Elliot Lee wrote:
>> The problem is that pygdk_block_threads assumes that an accompanying
>> pygdk_unblock_threads has previously been called, when in fact it hasn't.
>> This can happen in situations when a thread c
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Elliot Lee wrote:
> The problem is that pygdk_block_threads assumes that an accompanying
> pygdk_unblock_threads has previously been called, when in fact it hasn't.
> This can happen in situations when a thread calls a non-thread-wrapped gtk
> function that emits a signal (e
