On 07/03/2009 14:39, rgheck wrote:
rgheck wrote:
I did the check. No extra calls [to updateLabels()], so far as I can
see.
That said, there already was a double call on paste. This is because
we call updateLabels() in pasteParagraphList() and then we end up
calling it again after the depm me
rgheck wrote:
I did the check. No extra calls [to updateLabels()], so far as I can see.
That said, there already was a double call on paste. This is because we
call updateLabels() in pasteParagraphList() and then we end up calling
it again after the depm mechanism has done its thing from setCu
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
On 07/03/2009 03:22, rgheck wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
I'm a bit sceptical that someone did the effort to write a FIXME
and to
change updateLabels according to this, just not to implement a
for-loop of
one line of code. Why ?
On 07/03/2009 03:22, rgheck wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
I'm a bit sceptical that someone did the effort to write a FIXME and to
change updateLabels according to this, just not to implement a
for-loop of
one line of code. Why ? Maybe we miss something an
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> Anyway, I think it's OK.
So I commit to branch. Further work on the update* calls can be done in
1.6.3svn.
Jürgen
rgheck schreef:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
I'm a bit sceptical that someone did the effort to write a FIXME and to
change updateLabels according to this, just not to implement a
for-loop of
one line of code. Why ? Maybe we miss something and we introduce
a
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
I'm a bit sceptical that someone did the effort to write a FIXME and to
change updateLabels according to this, just not to implement a for-loop of
one line of code. Why ? Maybe we miss something and we introduce another
bug.
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
My own sense is that both of these things need doing. Unless buffer_
gets set as soon as possible, there's always the chance that something
somewhere will trigger a crash.
the question is whether your solution is sufficient for now, or whet
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
If this does the job for others, then someone can commit. I won't have
time until late tonight.
I have backported it to branch, and I can commit. I'd like to hear Vincent's
opinion first, though, since his approach (removing updateMacro calls) was
Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote:
> Well, both should be fixed, the logic in updateLabels is bypassed by this
> call to updateMacros in setParent.
The question is: what is needed for 1.6.2? Richard's patch fixes the crash for
me, and this is all we need currently (if it does not introduce other
>> If this does the job for others, then someone can commit. I won't have
>> time until late tonight.
>
>I have backported it to branch, and I can commit. I'd like to hear Vincent's
>opinion first, though, since his approach (removing updateMacro calls) was
>quite different.
Well, both should b
Richard Heck wrote:
> My own sense is that both of these things need doing. Unless buffer_
> gets set as soon as possible, there's always the chance that something
> somewhere will trigger a crash.
the question is whether your solution is sufficient for now, or whether we
need additional work to
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
I have backported it to branch, and I can commit. I'd like to hear Vincent's
opinion first, though, since his approach (removing updateMacro calls) was
quite different.
My own sense is that both of these things need doing. Unless buffer_
gets set as soon as possib
Richard Heck wrote:
> The attached patch (against trunk) fixes the bug for me. It just does
> what the FIXME said needed doing anyway.
Excellent. It works for me as well.
> If this does the job for others, then someone can commit. I won't have time
> until late tonight.
I have backported it to
The attached patch (against trunk) fixes the bug for me. It just does
what the FIXME said needed doing anyway. If this does the job for
others, then someone can commit. I won't have time until late tonight.
It seems clear that there's more to be done to clean this stuff up, but
perhaps this
15 matches
Mail list logo
