Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > > time to land. optmistic plan is RC3 on 11.4. let us hope RC4~20, final
> > > > ~27.
> > >
> > > i would like to make soft freeze at friday night and let only docs and
> > > translations.
> > > sunday night i would prepare RC3 tarballs.
>
> trunk is frozen now, prepari
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > time to land. optmistic plan is RC3 on 11.4. let us hope RC4~20, final
> > > ~27.
> >
> > i would like to make soft freeze at friday night and let only docs and
> > translations.
> > sunday night i would prepare RC3 tarballs.
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> LyX Ticket Tracker wrote:
> > Changes (by spitz):
> >
> > Pavel, I think we should include this fix in rc3, if possible.
>
> go on. pavel
done at r38325.
Jürgen
LyX Ticket Tracker wrote:
> Changes (by spitz):
>
> Pavel, I think we should include this fix in rc3, if possible.
go on. pavel
On 10/04/2011 11:12 AM, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:31:47AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
On 04/09/2011 06:46 PM, Julien Rioux wrote:
I always saw those two warnings (paraphrased):
Lexer.cpp:197 may be used uninitialized
void Lexer::Pimpl::verifyTable()
{
// [...]
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:31:47AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 04/09/2011 06:46 PM, Julien Rioux wrote:
> >I always saw those two warnings (paraphrased):
> >Lexer.cpp:197 may be used uninitialized
void Lexer::Pimpl::verifyTable()
{
// [...]
if (table <- this line?
Stephan Witt a écrit :
Am 08.04.2011 um 09:38 schrieb Jean-Pierre Chrétien:
Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
On 04/03/2011 08:38 PM, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote:
Hello,
Using the spellchecker window, I get this quite often when I hit 'Ignore all':
We reached the end of the document, would you li
On 04/09/2011 06:46 PM, Julien Rioux wrote:
I always saw those two warnings (paraphrased):
Lexer.cpp:197 may be used uninitialized
Server.cpp:1018 ignoring return value of write(...)
The Lexer one has been there forever. I'm not sure why we get it, and
I'm certainly not sure why removing the a
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> But there already was an assert and still is, that's why I didn't
> understand your concern.
my fault, i didn't looked carefully enough on the code around.
pavel
On 10-4-2011 10:02, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
However, I wonder whether r38320 was a good idea during the freeze we
just
have.
secondly wouldn't be better to push assert at this point? pavel
What do you mean by "pushing an assert" ?
to add assert instead of std::cout<<
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>>> However, I wonder whether r38320 was a good idea during the freeze we
>>> just
>>> have.
>> secondly wouldn't be better to push assert at this point? pavel
>
> What do you mean by "pushing an assert" ?
to add assert instead of std::cout << "Error in...
but the co
11 matches
Mail list logo
