On 14.04.2012 14:31, Michaël Michaud wrote:
> Hi,
>> actually i think laf should have been persistent already and see it
>> more as a bugfix, together with the proper theming of the options
>> dialog now. but it's no urgent matter, so it can wait if you want it to.
> Just wondered if it could cr
Hi,
Hereafter, I prepared a complete list of changes between 1.5.1 and 1.5.2
As soon as Ede did the last merge to 1.5.2 and before the official release,
I propose that we upload a working version so that project members can check
that bugs have been fixed AND MERGED into 1.5.2
Hopefully, we'll be
Hi,
> actually i think laf should have been persistent already and see it
> more as a bugfix, together with the proper theming of the options
> dialog now. but it's no urgent matter, so it can wait if you want it to.
Just wondered if it could create compatibility issues.
For example, I think tha
On 14.04.2012 12:30, Michaël Michaud wrote:
> Hi Ede,
>>> We just have to fix the regression before comitting 2803/2804
>> yeah, will have a look at that. after that let's wrap up and release.
> Hope it's fixed in r2819
> I added a null test in WarpingPanel. Seems to be consistent with the comment
Hi Ede,
> > We just have to fix the regression before comitting 2803/2804
> yeah, will have a look at that. after that let's wrap up and release.
Hope it's fixed in r2819
I added a null test in WarpingPanel. Seems to be consistent with the comment
Jo Aquino added in JUMPWorkbenchContext (line 96),
On 13.04.2012 22:44, Michaël Michaud wrote:
> Hi Ede,
>
> When I merged my last bug fixes, I excluded your commits :
> - r2793 (l&f persistence, a new feature)
> - 2797-2798 (same ?)
> - 2803-2804 because I think the new bug started with these commits.
actually i think laf should have been persis
Hi Ede,
When I merged my last bug fixes, I excluded your commits :
- r2793 (l&f persistence, a new feature)
- 2797-2798 (same ?)
- 2803-2804 because I think the new bug started with these commits.
I did not check in details.
May be some changes have to be merged.
We just have to fix the regressio
Hi
> A point I forgot about 1.5.2 release : Did we make a decision about
> the image to include in the installer ? What are the results of the
> poll ?
> just sent it out to the user list ..ede
Thanks, just read it, let's go for the bottom right logo.
Michaël
--
On 11.04.2012 23:28, Michaël Michaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A point I forgot about 1.5.2 release :
> Did we make a decision about the image to include in the installer ?
> What are the results of the poll ?
>
just sent it out to the user list ..ede
Hi,
A point I forgot about 1.5.2 release :
Did we make a decision about the image to include in the installer ?
What are the results of the poll ?
Michaël
--
Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
Le 10/04/2012 17:27, edgar.sol...@web.de a écrit :
> seems like jukka is right. my guess is that sextante parses more files than
> needed to find extensions. i'll have a look at the source
>
> stefan, can you give me a link to the sextante source repository where the oj
> binding sources are hos
On 10.04.2012 04:18, Stefan Steiniger wrote:
>> Nice information. Don't know the difference between check and loading,
>> > but dependency analysis seem more time-consuming than jar-size.
> seems like it actually is better to have a slow machine, as the figure
> returned are much easier to read ;)
Hi,
>> i am growing more and more convinced that the stable branch is a waste of
>> effort. how about moving back to trunk and add a 'option setting'/'cmd line
>> switch' for experimental features? but actually i feel that all this is not
>> necessary and we could add new functions all the time
Hi
>> 1 - bugs : I've fixed everything I can. I'll recapitulate these fixes in
>> a readme file
>> Hope that some of you will be able to have a test on 1.5.2 about these
>> fixes (and
>> not only in the trunk's NB)
> i was thinking about starting a second snapshot of the stable branch. this we
> w
On 09.04.2012 20:54, Michaël Michaud wrote:
> 1 - bugs : I've fixed everything I can. I'll recapitulate these fixes in
> a readme file
> Hope that some of you will be able to have a test on 1.5.2 about these
> fixes (and
> not only in the trunk's NB)
i was thinking about starting a second snapsh
Hi all,
I think we are almost ready for the 1.5.2 release.
I'd like to have your opinion about a few points before things are
completely frozen.
1 - bugs : I've fixed everything I can. I'll recapitulate these fixes in
a readme file
Hope that some of you will be able to have a test on 1.5.2 abo
16 matches
Mail list logo
