On Jun 7, 2012, at 05:22, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 01:22:47AM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Jun 6, 2012, at 15:13, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 02:10:47PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Jun 6, 2012, at
On Jun 6, 2012, at 4:04 AM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:03:44PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:35 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
I agree with your statement that from a functional standpoint this holds
true:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 02:52:51PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 14:03 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
Think about this from the libc
Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@freedesktop.org writes:
Ah, ok. Thanks, it sounded like it was private API. That sounds
fine, but please try to avoid doing this in the future. IMO, it's
better to keep around deprecated functionality than it is to bump the
major version of the library
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 02:52:51PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-04
On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 02:52:51PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Jun 4,
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 16:41:02 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Why did Do not rely anymore on gperf and m4 following removal of
deprecated atoms. do this:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 14:03 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
How are the xcb_atom_get_predefined/xcb_atom_get_name_predefined
removals not binary
Arnaud Fontaine ar...@debian.org writes:
How do you want to fix this? Is this a flag day, and it won't happen
again, or do you want to do a quick turn-around release of 0.3.10 and
recommend that nobody ship 0.3.9?
If I would have to revert this change, I would prefer the first
