On Nov 20, 2007 4:29 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Damn, I have to reset the git tree.
> Then apply patches manually and resend them :(
> Should I wait.? :(
> ---
> VJ
>
You should be able to join the commits with git-rebase then regenerate
the patches.
--
> Damn, I have to reset the git tree.
> Then apply patches manually and resend them :(
This isn't hard. Assuming you have these as the last three patches in
your tree:
git reset HEAD~2
git commit -a
This will rewind your tree two steps without changing your local
files, then commit them again.
T
On Nov 20, 2007 4:23 PM, Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The test fail due to missing implementation, Hence I put them in todo's.
> > After the implementation is there, they do not fail.
> > I think thats the procedure followed.
> > I have put the remove todo's in separate patch, as its la
> The test fail due to missing implementation, Hence I put them in todo's.
> After the implementation is there, they do not fail.
> I think thats the procedure followed.
> I have put the remove todo's in separate patch, as its large.
James is correct, patches 2 and 3 should be concatenated. 2 is
On Nov 20, 2007 3:57 PM, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/20/07, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is a description of patch series which I am now going to send.
> > It adds the new Enhanced RSA AES provider to the rsaenh.
> > The one application w
On 11/20/07, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a description of patch series which I am now going to send.
> It adds the new Enhanced RSA AES provider to the rsaenh.
> The one application which I know uses it is Office 2007.
> The first patch contains the tests for the
Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 18. November 2007 17:13:20 schrieb Lionel Tricon:
>> Hi wine list,
>>
>> I am currently working for the next generation of the klik project (1
>> application = 1 file) and we actualy face some troubles with picasa which
>> is running under linux thanks to wine.
> I looked into switching svchost to ansi since there is no unicode
> version of GetProcAddress (used within svchost).
In general Unicode is the way to go, but there's no reason you can't
use Unicode for those APIs that are, and ANSI for those that aren't,
specifically, when querying the function
> mhhh - since it cost me more then one hour to find out why my machine reboots
> and triggering a reboot by just _reading_ a file on my system, device node or
> not is at least very weird behaviour from a user`s perspective.
>
> >waiting for an user-space daemon to start handling of /dev/watchd
Hello,
In the beginning, I thought to share the code between d3drm and d3dx8,
but unfortunelaty, it was not a good idea, since the structure
quaternion is not the same in the both dll (definitively 4 floats, but
4 floats in d3dx8, 1 float and a d3drmvector in d3drm). So, it was not
pretty.
mhhh - since it cost me more then one hour to find out why my machine reboots
and triggering a reboot by just _reading_ a file on my system, device node or
not is at least very weird behaviour from a user`s perspective.
>waiting for an user-space daemon to start handling of /dev/watchdog file
"Jacek Caban" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:
>> Any other pointers?
>>
> This interface shouldn't be available in BSCallback. You probably added
> it because of the FIXME message. I've sent a patch that silences it. In
> the future you
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Robert Shearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Main executable has its own base address which should work just fine
>>> in find_process_dll().
>>
>> Really? http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f7f5138s(VS.71).aspx
>
> I don't see how the page above is related to w
"Robert Shearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Main executable has its own base address which should work just fine
>> in find_process_dll().
>
> Really? http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f7f5138s(VS.71).aspx
I don't see how the page above is related to what I said. Main exe module
is be
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>> Is it really necessary to introduce the exe_module request parameter?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Main executable has its own base address which should work just fine
>> in find_process_dll().
>
> Really? http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/l
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Robert Shearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> +if (req->exe_module)
>> +dll = list_head( &process->dlls ) ?
>> +LIST_ENTRY(list_head( &process->dlls ), struct
>> process_dll, entry) : NULL;
>> +else
>> +dll = fin
16 matches
Mail list logo
