On 27 Jun 2007, at 23:27, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
before the currently scheduled time
for 2.2.2 (someone said it would be summer 2008, is that right?)
Nobody has said that in this thread afaics, and even if someone did
that would be very unlikely to be right. The only estimates I
On 6/22/07, Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Resources patch: up to the Windows maintainers.
And what do the Windows maintainers say?
Considering that lazarus snapshots are now build with a patched fpc
2.1.5 (Vincent, correct me if I am wrong), and it is working fine
here, maybe this cou
On Friday 22 June 2007 11.19, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> On 22 jun 2007, at 00:17, Vincent Snijders wrote:
> > I see the following options, start with the IMHO most preferable to
> > the least preferable:
> > A: merge those patches to the fixes branch now.
>
> As far as the checksynchronize patch is conc
On 22 jun 2007, at 00:17, Vincent Snijders wrote:
I see the following options, start with the IMHO most preferable to
the least preferable:
A: merge those patches to the fixes branch now.
As far as the checksynchronize patch is concerned: since it (almost?)
only affects Lazarus and mside,
- Original Message -
From: Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:04 am
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
> On 6/22/07, Vincent Snijders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is not that we can't use the release, but
On 6/22/07, Vincent Snijders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is not that we can't use the release, but we (at least I) rather risk a
possible instability rather than have some some known bugs and limitations. And
that I want to invest time in it by distributing patched versions of fpc. I
think t
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:58:55 +0200 (CEST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
> > On 21 jun 2007, at 20:52, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> >
> > ... That said, you are clearly in favour of merging those patches, and so
> > is Vincent. ...
>
> I'm a simple echo of Vincent. The point is
> On 21 jun 2007, at 20:52, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> ... That said, you are clearly in favour of merging those patches, and so
> is Vincent. ...
I'm a simple echo of Vincent. The point is that I see Lazarus more or less
as the (only) Tier 1 "customer". They earned that right by their feed
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:31:59 +0200
Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Nobody will dispute that, regardless of when the release is. That's
> >> also not what the discussion is about. The question is whether it's
> >> better to risk introducing new unknown bugs by merging those
> >> part
On 21 jun 2007, at 20:52, Marco van de Voort wrote:
On 21 jun 2007, at 20:30, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Afaik everyone who is needed for release building is still available
in the last week of July.
True, but rushing wouldn't do the release any good IMHO.
I don't think the end of July is r
> On 21 jun 2007, at 20:30, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> > Currently, I don't see 2.2 being released before september (because of
> > holidays, we are getting awfully close to july).
>
> Afaik everyone who is needed for release building is still available
> in the last week of July.
True, but
On 21 jun 2007, at 20:30, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Currently, I don't see 2.2 being released before september (because of
holidays, we are getting awfully close to july).
Afaik everyone who is needed for release building is still available
in the last week of July.
So,
- Maybe we shoul
> On 21 jun 2007, at 18:39, Vincent Snijders wrote:
>
> > And I do actually want to be as close as possible to the release
> > code, but IMHO opnion the merge policy of the fpc team is too strict.
>
> Afaics none of the two issues listed on that wiki page are
> regressions. I therefore don't
On 21 jun 2007, at 19:41, Vincent Snijders wrote:
We have done such things before (like switching the compiler to
executeprocess shortly before a release because dos.exec had 255 char
limitations, and then after the release it turned out that in some
not that uncommon situations executeprocess
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:49:39 +0200
Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 21 jun 2007, at 18:39, Vincent Snijders wrote:
>
> > And I do actually want to be as close as possible to the release
> > code, but IMHO opnion the merge policy of the fpc team is too strict.
>
> Afaics none of t
On 21 jun 2007, at 18:39, Vincent Snijders wrote:
And I do actually want to be as close as possible to the release
code, but IMHO opnion the merge policy of the fpc team is too strict.
Afaics none of the two issues listed on that wiki page are
regressions. I therefore don't think it is unr
I think it's a bad idea to release Lazarus with a patched FPC 2.2
If FPC 2.2 isn't suitable for a Lazarus release, IMHO we should wait
for 2.2.2 or similar.
thanks,
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:27:48 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Vreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 21 jun 2007, at 16:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> I committed it in trunk in r7756.
> >>
> >> I created a wiki page with missing changes in the fixes branch. I
> >> am considering to add them the sn
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:08:05 +0200
Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 21 jun 2007, at 16:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I committed it in trunk in r7756.
> >
> > I created a wiki page with missing changes in the fixes branch. I
> > am considering to add them the snapshots built
>
> On 21 jun 2007, at 16:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I committed it in trunk in r7756.
>>
>> I created a wiki page with missing changes in the fixes branch. I
>> am considering to add them the snapshots built for Lazarus.
>> http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/
>> Useful_changes_not_in_the_fi
On 21 jun 2007, at 16:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I committed it in trunk in r7756.
I created a wiki page with missing changes in the fixes branch. I
am considering to add them the snapshots built for Lazarus.
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/
Useful_changes_not_in_the_fixes_branch
Ple
- Original Message -
From: Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:57 pm
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
>
> On 21 jun 2007, at 14:54, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> > On 21 jun 2007, at 14:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
On 21 jun 2007, at 14:54, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 21 jun 2007, at 14:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following patch from Micha works with pfc 2.1.5:
I tried to run the test programs with fpc 2.3.1 too, but I had too
much troubles
with the heapmanager to be able to test it.
Can this patch
- Original Message -
From: Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:54 pm
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
>
> On 21 jun 2007, at 14:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The following patch from Micha works with pfc 2.1.5:
> &
On 21 jun 2007, at 14:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following patch from Micha works with pfc 2.1.5:
I tried to run the test programs with fpc 2.3.1 too, but I had too
much troubles
with the heapmanager to be able to test it.
Can this patch be applied?
I think it's ok.
Jonas
- Original Message -
From: Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:34 am
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
>
> On 18 jun 2007, at 19:48, Vincent Snijders wrote:
>
> > Is it our fault that we call CheckSynchronize nested (i.e.
On 18 jun 2007, at 19:48, Vincent Snijders wrote:
Is it our fault that we call CheckSynchronize nested (i.e.
indirectly from a synchronized method) or is a CheckSynchronize not
smart enough not to call the synchronized method (i.e MyMessage)
twice, even if Synchronize is called only once f
Hi,
I was investigating the lazarus bug report
http://www.freepascal.org/mantis/view.php?id=9068.
It is caused by the following sequence of events (... eventually calls):
Synchronize(@MyMessage)
In the MainThread:
ProcessMessages
CheckSynchronize
...
MyMessage
...
AForm.ShowModal
...
ProcessMes
28 matches
Mail list logo
