Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 12:04:35PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | So if it is not really controversial why do point it out? Because you
| > | think Georg judgment is not enough?
| >
| > Actually I think must of you (all) (including me) does not
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 12:04:35PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | So if it is not really controversial why do point it out? Because you
> | think Georg judgment is not enough?
>
> Actually I think must of you (all) (including me) does not think about
> patches in the 'self-contained-as-smal
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| And I also believe (not sure) that the tree was not usable between two
| of your recent small successive commits.
Barring oversights, and trivial fixes it was usable at all times.
--
Lgb
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| And I also believe (not sure) that the tree was not usable between two
| of your recent small successive commits.
That was a fluke¹... a mistake. Do you want me to revert them and
commit as only single commit.
I made (IMHO) every effort to have th
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I think we should wait for three days until Lars has time to review
| all patches in depth. But would that be enough Lars?
You still do not get it. It is not the patch(es) per se, but how we
split the changes into chunks
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars, what do you want to achieve with this discussion? The patch is small
| enough to understand it easily. You say the patch should have been
| splitted because a part of it might be controversal, but then you don't
| say what is wrong with it and that
Am Sonntag, 9. Juli 2006 11:53 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Am Sonntag, 9. Juli 2006 01:28 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> | > The Change to insetgraphics is obvously ok (as long as we don't use
> | > boost::path directly)
> | >
> | > The change to Fi
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I think we should wait for three days until Lars has time to review
| all patches in depth. But would that be enough Lars?
You still do not get it. It is not the patch(es) per se, but how we
split the changes into chunks and commit them.
| > The Ch
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Am Sonntag, 9. Juli 2006 01:28 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
| > The Change to insetgraphics is obvously ok (as long as we don't use
| > boost::path directly)
| >
| > The change to FileName is really ortogonal and quite a bit more
| > controversial. (Not re
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| This patch adds a cache for FileName::isZipped, because the file has to be
| read to get that information. The plan is to eventually replace most
| filename variables of type string with variables of type FileName. That
| wou
Am Sonntag, 9. Juli 2006 01:28 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> The Change to insetgraphics is obvously ok (as long as we don't use
> boost::path directly)
>
> The change to FileName is really ortogonal and quite a bit more
> controversial. (Not really, but...)
They are not orthogonal. The change t
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| This patch adds a cache for FileName::isZipped, because the file has to be
| read to get that information. The plan is to eventually replace most
| filename variables of type string with variables of type FileName. That
| would mean less checks like BOOS
This patch adds a cache for FileName::isZipped, because the file has to be
read to get that information. The plan is to eventually replace most
filename variables of type string with variables of type FileName. That
would mean less checks like BOOST_ASSERT(absolutePath(file_in)); And of
course
13 matches
Mail list logo
