On 03.04.2019 15:16, LRN wrote:
> On 05.03.2019 17:23, LRN wrote:
>> On 05.03.2019 17:07, E. Madison Bray wrote:
>>>
>>> If they're clean, worthwhile patches then I absolutely think you
>>> should get them integrated upstream if at all possible--that's almost
>>> always preferable.
>>
>> Okay, i'll
On 05.03.2019 17:23, LRN wrote:
> On 05.03.2019 17:07, E. Madison Bray wrote:
>>
>> If they're clean, worthwhile patches then I absolutely think you
>> should get them integrated upstream if at all possible--that's almost
>> always preferable.
>
> Okay, i'll see what i can do.
>
Made some progre
On 05.03.2019 17:07, E. Madison Bray wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM LRN wrote:
>>
>> Looking at cygwin glib source package, i see a lot of downstream patches
>> applied to glib over the years (there are no dates, but the versions range
>> from
>> 2.34.3 to 2.50 - that might be as early a
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM LRN wrote:
>
> Looking at cygwin glib source package, i see a lot of downstream patches
> applied to glib over the years (there are no dates, but the versions range
> from
> 2.34.3 to 2.50 - that might be as early as 2012 and as late as 2017) to make
> it
> work co
Looking at cygwin glib source package, i see a lot of downstream patches
applied to glib over the years (there are no dates, but the versions range from
2.34.3 to 2.50 - that might be as early as 2012 and as late as 2017) to make it
work correctly on cygwin.
Why are these not upstream (considering
5 matches
Mail list logo