On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:15 -0600, Mike Abbott wrote:
> For all the changes you checked into 1.1 on our behalf, will they also
> be included in 1.2?
Yes, everything that's in v1.1 is (or should be) always in v1.2.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Following up.
You checked in slightly different versions of patches 1, 3 and 4 and
released them with 1.1.8. We will test your solutions for these and
adopt them if they work. Thanks!
For all the changes you checked into 1.1 on our behalf, will they also
be included in 1.2?
Summary:
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 11:39 -0600, Mike Abbott wrote:
> Here are the first few simple patches from Apple, based on
> dovecot-1.1.7. The comments with "APPLE" in them helped us merge in
> your new releases; feel free to remove them. Please let me know if
> you want subsequent patch
But it decreases the refcount every time.
So it does. You're right, simply removing the assert is probably
sufficient.
On Dec 16, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Mike Abbott wrote:
Hmm. Actually I think when I was writing that code I noticed the same
thing and tried to fix it with:
/* there can be multiple events for a single io.
call the callback only once if that happens. */
Hmm. Actually I think when I was writing that code I noticed the same
thing and tried to fix it with:
/* there can be multiple events for a single io.
call the callback only once if that happens. */
if (io->refcount == 2 && io->io.callback != NUL
On Dec 16, 2008, at 6:26 PM, Mike Abbott wrote:
Patch #1. Some versions of Mac OS X have buggy CMSG_* macros.
Is the nopen() check really necessary?
It might detect buggy CMSG macros on non-Apple systems.
I'd like to know at least what kind of a bug it works around for
before applying it
Patch #1. Some versions of Mac OS X have buggy CMSG_* macros.
Is the nopen() check really necessary?
It might detect buggy CMSG macros on non-Apple systems.
I'd like to know at least what kind of a bug it works around for
before applying it.
The 64-bit CMSG macros are broken in such a wa
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 05:01 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > Patch #3. Some versions of Mac OS X return near-duplicate kevents.
>
> This probably won't affect other BSDs, so I think the duplicate removal
> should be around #ifdef __APPLE__?
Hmm. Actually I think when I was writing that code I not
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 11:39 -0600, Mike Abbott wrote:
> Here are the first few simple patches from Apple, based on
> dovecot-1.1.7. The comments with "APPLE" in them helped us merge in
> your new releases; feel free to remove them. Please let me know if
> you want subsequent patches in a di
Patch 5 seems spurious to me, regardless of what Apple's lawyers want.
There are more substantial patches coming.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Mike Abbott wrote:
> Patch #5. Required by Apple's lawyers.
Patch 5 seems spurious to me, regardless of what Apple's lawyers want.
Three of the four patches are working around bugs in Apple's own OS.
Most are a few lines.
Sending patches upstream are great, b
12 matches
Mail list logo
