On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 07:34:18PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > True: it's clear that a sane design does not need this crap
> > False: it can't just "simply go" because it is critical code and any
> > naive replacement will incur lots and lots of difficult bugs.
> >
> > You said earlier you did
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 06:22:57PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> This is simultaneously true and false.
>
> True: it's clear that a sane design does not need this crap
> False: it can't just "simply go" because it is critical code and any
> naive replacement will incur lots and lots of difficult bugs
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > 1. do it on a branch, get it working with no regressions
> > 2. merge it
>
> Not enough manpower. We can hardly keep one branch of development going.
> Have a guess at the level of interest some obscure branch gets
My offer t
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 05:56:33PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:38:52AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > I have been able to reproduce the 'diagonal lines in table' drawing
> > issue (which was one of two for which 'remove update()' got thumbs
> > down) with 1.3.x.
>
> T
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:38:52AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I have been able to reproduce the 'diagonal lines in table' drawing
> issue (which was one of two for which 'remove update()' got thumbs
> down) with 1.3.x.
That was one of the two reasons you gave. I saw massive horkage of
almost e
I have been able to reproduce the 'diagonal lines in table' drawing
issue (which was one of two for which 'remove update()' got thumbs
down) with 1.3.x.
So this is nothing introduced by the 'remove update' patch but some old
issue that has been somehow covered so far (probably by the excessive
up
