[no subject]

Anyway, to get things done right, I'd appreciate if someone here can
help me code review and suggestion
how the merge and commit of these should be done.

Regards,
Toshi

>
>
>>There may be some small stopgaps that can go in Zvt in the available
>>time, but I just don't believe anyone is enough of a badass to fix and
>>stabilize in that time. I could be proven wrong of course. ;-)
>>
>>But I'm not sure we should particularly be planning to make the large
>>Zvt fixes purely for 2.0.x, just isn't realistic.
>>
>
>As it is, zvt is pretty unusable for anyone who needs anything outside
>of [A-z]. So... IMHO, it's worth risking destabilizing it because the
>remaining bug is so huge. I guess that's a judgement call, though- I'm
>not sure whose.
>
>Luis
>_______________________________________________
>gnome-hackers mailing list
>gnome-hackers gnome org
>http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
>


--Boundary_(ID_pUEBNjslI3lcrLWlg4AHFQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
Luis Villa wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:1027968526 24027 66 camel localhost localdomain">
  <pre wrap="">On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 14:40, Havoc Pennington wrote:<br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Luis Villa <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:louie ximian com">&lt;louie ximian com&gt;</a> writes: <br></pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">No, no! zvt will be the community's solution for the 2.0.x series- it's<br>just I'm afraid you've been the only person working on it, so when I saw<br>no response from you I was afraid no solution was forthcoming. :) If you<br>are going to continue to work on it, please don't let my<br>misunderstandings of your situation stop you :) <br><br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">I should point out, in my opinion it is impossible to fix and<br>stabilize zvt in the timeframe we have for 2.0.2. Just won't make the<br>deadline. So if we're fixing zvt, it's either for 2.2, or it's going<br>to mean making large destabilizing changes post-2.0.2.<br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap=""><!----><br>FWIW, it's currently way more stable (even in the i18n branch) than vte-<br>there hasn't been a crash reported against it in months against the<br>trunk, and the i18n branch in it's current form has no reported crashes,<br>despite a couple of weeks of testing in the ximian snaps. I have no idea<br>how much further work hidetoshi needs to do, though.</pre>
      </blockquote>
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]