Re: [sldev] Open Source Meeting Thu 2pm

I've added: "An update from WorkingOnIt Linden about [VWR-3943] Out of Memory in Smartheap Library errors. It has 148 votes, 55 watchers, and has been around since last year. If we could get more information about the progress, we might be able to help fix it." Although it hasn't been discuss

[sldev] Open Source Meeting Thu 2pm

Our Thursday open source meetings take place at 2pm. If there is anything you would like on the agenda... have at it! http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Open_Source_Meeting/Agenda ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondl

Re: [sldev] FMOD version used in official viewer

Tim 't Hart wrote: I recently compiled version 1.20.17 of the viewer and everything is working great. However, when I run the compiled exe from the normal viewer installation folder, I get a warning about a version mismatch caused by FMOD. The warning is as follows: WARNING: LLAudioEngine_FMOD

[sldev] FMOD version used in official viewer

I recently compiled version 1.20.17 of the viewer and everything is working great. However, when I run the compiled exe from the normal viewer installation folder, I get a warning about a version mismatch caused by FMOD. The warning is as follows: WARNING: LLAudioEngine_FMOD::init: Error : You are

Re: [sldev] Security Update 2008-10-06 to SL Viewers and sourcecode - CLARIFICATION

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:53:01 +0200, Latif Khalifa wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Henri Beauchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 12:22:56 -0500, Soft wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Henri Beauchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > .../... > >> > Yet th

Re: [sldev] Security Update 2008-10-06 to SL Viewers and source code-CLARIFICATION

Soft skrev: On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Anders Arnholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes. That was not intentional. A well-intended dev edited the release notes, which should only be maintained by a member of the release team. That shouldn't repeat. Peronally i think that was good, made

Re: [sldev] Security Update 2008-10-06 to SL Viewers and source code-CLARIFICATION

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Anders Arnholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In this case I have to object, the details on how to write the exploit was > in the release note. Yes. That was not intentional. A well-intended dev edited the release notes, which should only be maintained by a member o

Re: [sldev] Security Update 2008-10-06 to SL Viewers and source code-CLARIFICATION

We're in the process of roughing out something like that exactly. These are my meeting notes from a discussion we held about this. This is draft only, not set policy. Again, feedback is welcome: * Security release ** How do we want to handle security source releases in the future? ** Ideal process

Re: [sldev] Security Update 2008-10-06 to SL Viewers and source code- CLARIFICATION

Soft skrev: The least "widely used" viewer we shared source with has about 6 users. It's honestly not a numbers game, which is why Rob said "widely available," not "widely used." We were reaching out to known viewer maintainers in advance of a full public source disclosure in order to reduce the

Re: [sldev] Security Update 2008-10-06 to SL Viewers and source code- CLARIFICATION

Would it not be worth considering some kind of rapid deployment program that developers can choose to sign up to, to receive patches early providing they've agreed to non disclosure? This would mean that the serious developers could get the source they need as early as possible, without having

Re: [sldev] Security Update 2008-10-06 to SL Viewers and source code- CLARIFICATION

The least "widely used" viewer we shared source with has about 6 users. It's honestly not a numbers game, which is why Rob said "widely available," not "widely used." We were reaching out to known viewer maintainers in advance of a full public source disclosure in order to reduce the chance of the

Re: [sldev] Security Update 2008-10-06 to SL Viewers and source code - CLARIFICATION

Personally i'd be rather more worried about this attitude of "you must have a widely-used alternative viewer to get this apparently vital security update". They aren't telling people it's ok to violate the GPL as-such, since I doubt they'll allow it after this incident. How many users must an alte

[sldev] [Patch] VWR-423 - Selecting group charter text causes Apply/Ignore/Cancel popup

Hello Developers! I submitted a patch to correct the behavior in the group information panel. Right now after opening the group information panel, changing the focus in this window will cause the viewer to ask you if you want to commit changed information, even though you didn't change anything

[sldev] SDL on win32

I've been pondering why this is not used SDL is designed for being cross-platform, yet the viewer only uses it on linux. If SDL was used on all platforms instead then it would make certain tasks a lot simpler (say for example that firefox plugin i've been working on). So, before I waste ti

Re: [sldev] Compile error: 1.19.1(4) VC8

Andromeda Quonset skrev: Tom, I wish I could help you. I have also tried to compile 1.19.1(4) release viewer. I am down to 10 errors remaining, and it includes the same llutf16string issue that you have. I have posted my compile output in this list, in a message dated Sept 13, 2008. Nobody

[sldev] [Patch] VWR-7896 - Landmark pushpins do not change color after visiting them.

Hi Developers! I sent in a patch to fix the "Landmark pushpins do not change color after visiting them" problem. There were a few things in the viewer that prevented the correct behavior from happening. The patch fixes it and you will now see all (subsequently) visited landmarks correctly marke