On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 05:56:33PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:38:52AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > I have been able to reproduce the 'diagonal lines in table' drawing > > issue (which was one of two for which 'remove update()' got thumbs > > down) with 1.3.x. > > That was one of the two reasons you gave. I saw massive horkage of > almost everything table-related.
There are diagonal lines probably stemming from drawing cell borders. I've seen those in 1.3.x as weel, so this is not introduced by the patch. > > So this is nothing introduced by the 'remove update' patch but some old > > issue that has been somehow covered so far (probably by the excessive > > updates and redraws). > > Covered means the user can't see it normally. "Normally"... hm. Worst thing is I can't reproduce it, so you have a point here. > My argument goes like this: > > 1. do it on a branch, get it working with no regressions > 2. merge it Not enough manpower. We can hardly keep one branch of development going. Have a guess at the level of interest some obscure branch gets.... > I know I will annoy you by saying this. But the last thing 1.4 can > afford is massive breakage of code nobody understands and will take at > least 4 months to fix up. Undo is really a drop in the ocean compared to > the complexity of the update() stuff. No part of this complexity is needed. Not a single line. It simply can go. You do not want to tell me that all the monstrosity is needed just to get a few table boundaries in the right place on screen, do you? > I would *love* to see update() die but we cannot afford to do such > dangerous work on the trunk, not now. You seem to think that the sources are unfixable on an absolute scale. They aren't. If the structure is clear, fixing is simple. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
