On 8 November 2010 04:45, Austin Lund wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 11:49, James McKenzie wrote:
>> Thus a second test case needs to be
>> developed that is only for Windows7 and the remaining test skipped for
>> Windows7. Something like what we do for Unicode tests for Windows9x/ME.
>
> Isn't th
On 08/11/10 08:44, Austin English wrote:
Howdy Shachar,
I've noticed a few pgp/gpg websites that say the key should have the
persons FULL name. Is the full name required, or is just my First/Last
name sufficient?
Thanks for organizing this, by the way :-).
In a nutshell - it depends.
I,
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> During WineConf we will be holding a key signing party, organized by your
> truly. The wiki page for WineConf has been updated with details on how to
> participate, and I have set up a page explaining the process for people who
>
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 06:48:22PM -0800, Austin English wrote:
> Howdy Brian,
>
> You're mixing tabs and spaces. Please use consistent spacing, as the
> rest of the file does.
Indeed, I was wondering about that... Also, I realized after submitting my
previous email that checking for "X.Org" in g
On 8 November 2010 11:49, James McKenzie wrote:
> Thus a second test case needs to be
> developed that is only for Windows7 and the remaining test skipped for
> Windows7. Something like what we do for Unicode tests for Windows9x/ME.
Isn't the rule that the tests should only check windows versio
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Brian Paterni wrote:
> Hello, I've been receiving a couple "unrecognized GL_VENDOR" fixme's lately
> and
> decided to poke around wine's source. I've found that
> wined3d_guess_card_vendor
> does not return the correct enum for people running mesa's r600g driver,
On 11/7/10 6:41 PM, David Hedberg wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 01:22, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
-ok(hr == S_OK, "got (0x%08x)\n", hr);
+ok(hr == S_OK || hr == E_FAIL /* Win7 */, "got (0x%08x)\n", hr);
This can't be correct. It either works or it fails. Can't be both at the
same time. Yo
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 01:22, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
>>
>> - ok(hr == S_OK, "got (0x%08x)\n", hr);
>> + ok(hr == S_OK || hr == E_FAIL /* Win7 */, "got (0x%08x)\n", hr);
>
> This can't be correct. It either works or it fails. Can't be both at the
> same time. You should look into why it's fa
On 11/07/2010 04:06 PM, David Hedberg wrote:
-ok(hr == S_OK, "got (0x%08x)\n", hr);
+ok(hr == S_OK || hr == E_FAIL /* Win7 */, "got (0x%08x)\n", hr);
This can't be correct. It either works or it fails. Can't be both at the
same time. You should look into why it's failing on Win7 and co
> From: Eric Pouech
>
> how come I got two different test results for the same patch ?
> moreover one is perfectly ok, while the other shows strange results
> any idea ?
Yeah, that's a bit weird. The only thing I can think of is some kind
of timing issue, but looking at the code that seems unlikel
Hi Ge,
how come I got two different test results for the same patch ?
moreover one is perfectly ok, while the other shows strange results
any idea ?
A+
--
Eric Pouech
"The problem with designing something completely foolproof is to underestimate the
ingenuity of a complete idiot." (Douglas Ada
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=6861
Your paranoid android.
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=6859
Your paranoid android.
Hi Eich,
2010/11/7 Erich Hoover :
> Is there some reason you chose to add an additional function for this,
> rather than fill in pPinImpl->pin.pFuncsTable? I ask because I was
> working on this issue last night and submitted an attachment to Bug
> #24782 for people to try:
> http://bugs2.winehq.o
Is there some reason you chose to add an additional function for this,
rather than fill in pPinImpl->pin.pFuncsTable? I ask because I was
working on this issue last night and submitted an attachment to Bug
#24782 for people to try:
http://bugs2.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=31770
Erich Hoover
ehoo
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=6856
Your paranoid android.
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=6855
Your paranoid android.
On 11/5/10 9:39 PM, Austin Lund wrote:
On 5 November 2010 22:35, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Austin Lund writes:
+static void init_tbsize_results(void) {
+tbsize_results = (tbsize_result_t *)HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(),
HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY, 24*sizeof(tbsize_result_t));
+tbsize_results[0]
It definitely could. I just thought that would result in a lot of ugly
probe array definitions. Nevertheless, if you think it would be
cleaner, I could definitely migrate it over, without too much effort.
Travis.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> On 2 November 2010 07:20, Tr
19 matches
Mail list logo
