On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 05:11:34PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> I'll try, but I suppose I lost the patch myself.
>
> Was it supposed to be functionally equivalent to the old code?
Completely.
It was mainly whitespace stuff, some common code put into a seperate
function and a spl
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 04:57:40PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre': I tried to apply your patch for testing under purify and patch
> says it is malformed. Could you re-send it?
I'll try, but I suppose I lost the patch myself.
> Currently I am looking at memory leaks in the undo code
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 11:51:08AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | I have had the undo changes in my local tree for a week or so now and have
> | not had any problems.
>
> Get somebody else to test it as well, the changes is good so it should
> go in, but a tiny bit more testing first...
O
