From: Joaquin Cuenca Abela (e98cuenc@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jun 18 2002 - 08:23:10 EDT
--- phearbear <phearbear@home.se> wrote:
> Joaquin Cuenca Abela wrote:
>
> >--- phearbear <phearbear@home.se> wrote:
> >
> I understand that that the xft stuff is going to be
> in STABLE, but stuff
> like the Insert dialog and the layout code fixes
> (??) should really be
> against HEAD.
agreed for the insert dialog stuff.
IMO the layout code fixes are small enough to be
integrated in both HEAD and STABLE.
> Would be appriciated if it was broken up in several
> patches atleast.
> Mega patches are.. uhm.. ugly.
yes, but the 5 minutes that takes my cvs copy to sync
(when it works at all) through the bouncer is
preventing me to do it in a "nicer" way.
Almost none of these "fixes" are a must if you don't
use AA (the layout changes) or easily done without
having more information about the font than what we
have now (we can still do the insert dialog changes
having big encoding tables to cover the "most-known"
encodings, but the code will be different enough to be
an easy change).
The exception is the printer code. The current
situation is too complex for the users. It's so
complex, that they consider the current situation to
be a bug. It would be good to split the printer code,
review it without Xft, and commit it.
If someone want to split my patch and commit the
layout fixes part and the printer part, be my guess.
But by now I don't have enough time to do it with the
current state of my cvs connection.
Cheers,
=====
Joaquin Cuenca Abela
e98cuenc@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jun 18 2002 - 08:25:29 EDT