On Sep 15, 2009, at 7:31 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
John Ralls <jra...@ceridwen.us> writes:
After reading the bug report it doesn't sound to me like they were
actively trying to not make xquartz work, but rather they didn't
understand what was going on.
Perhaps supplying an alternate patch based on their HEADrev might
appease them?
It's sort of like someone coming here and submitting a patch to 2.2.6
(or 2.0.5) -- we just don't care about it anymore. But if they
supply a
patch to 2.3.5 or HEADrev we're more likely to look.
No, it's not like that. It's like I submitted a patch against trunk
and said in the bug report that I'd tested it against 2.3.3, but had
checked the code in trunk and it hadn't changed.
Anyway, your suggestion of a counter-patch against trunk is worth
trying, so I will.
Regards,
John Ralls
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
