On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am trying to argue that the bug does not warrant closure, wine-devel > does > > not seem like an appropriate venue for such a discussion. > > It depends on the bug. The consensus seems to be that this bug is > invalid, and I'm inclined to agree. A better bug would be something > about Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 Beta and how it fails. The bug, > as you opened it, doesn't have enough details about the specific > failure you're trying to fix. At the time I opened the bug that would not have done any good, the only thing I could have said at that time is that it failed on WinHttpOpen. After minimally implementing things I could now have added a more complete list if the bug were still open. > > > Honestly, I believe that this problem illustrates the need for these kind > of > > bugs - if I had found a bug for WinHttp in bugzilla assigned to Zac then > I > > could easily contact him. I do not have time to monitor wine-devel in > order > > keep track of what everyone is working on so that I can keep from > stepping > > on people's toes. > > If not stepping on someone's toes is your wish, is it too much to ask > that you ask on wine-devel? You don't have to read it on a regular > basis to post a question, and it's rather well known that Zac's been > working on WinHttp. We could have pointed you in the right direction. While this is not a particularly efficient mechanism for solving these kinds of problems, I can do that in the future. Would you mind pointing me in the direction of Zac's patches? > > --Juan >