Hi,
Since I graduate this year, this may be the last time I participate--or at
least, attempt to participate, since last year didn't quite work out for me
:(--in Summer of Code. (I realize I was supposed to email you last week, but
what's done is done.) So, without further ado, here's what I'm
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=17541
Your paranoid android
On Wednesday 28 March 2012 04:43:54 pm Ken Thomases wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Andrew Eikum wrote:
> > I added a prefix to each MMDevice indicating its flow direction.
> >
> > This solves the Rosetta Stone issue, as you can see in the bug. But
> > when testing this in other applications
Am 28.03.2012 04:33, schrieb Julian Rüger:
> Hi André,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 27.03.2012, 21:43 +0200 schrieb André Hentschel:
>> ---
>> po/de.po |7 +++
>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> #: jscript.rc:37
>> -#, fuzzy
>> #| msgid "Invalid parameter.\n"
>> msgid "Inva
On Mar 27, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Andrew Eikum wrote:
> I added a prefix to each MMDevice indicating its flow direction.
> This solves the Rosetta Stone issue, as you can see in the bug. But
> when testing this in other applications, it quickly becomes silly.
> Audacity 1.3 adds its own "Out: " prefi
Alistair Leslie-Hughes writes:
> @@ -4,4 +4,6 @@ C_SRCS = scrrun.c
>
> RC_SRCS = scrrun.rc
>
> +IDL_TLB_SCRS = scrrun.idl
This can't possibly do anything. I've fixed it up, but please test your
code before sending, it's not the first time you send a registration
patch that doesn't register
2012/3/28 Alexandre Julliard
> Christian Costa writes:
>
> > 2012/3/28 Alexandre Julliard
> >
> >> Christian Costa writes:
> >>
> >> > @@ -360,14 +361,17 @@ HRESULT WINAPI
> STRMBASE_DllGetClassObject(REFCLSID
> >> rclsid, REFIID riid, LPVOID *
> >> > break;
> >> > }
> >> >
>
Christian Costa writes:
> 2012/3/28 Alexandre Julliard
>
>> Christian Costa writes:
>>
>> > @@ -360,14 +361,17 @@ HRESULT WINAPI STRMBASE_DllGetClassObject(REFCLSID
>> rclsid, REFIID riid, LPVOID *
>> > break;
>> > }
>> >
>> > +if (!GetModuleFileNameA(g_hInst, dllname, siz
2012/3/28 Alexandre Julliard
> Christian Costa writes:
>
> > @@ -360,14 +361,17 @@ HRESULT WINAPI STRMBASE_DllGetClassObject(REFCLSID
> rclsid, REFIID riid, LPVOID *
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > +if (!GetModuleFileNameA(g_hInst, dllname, sizeof(dllname)))
> > +strcpy(dl
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Michael Stefaniuc writes:
>
> >> The pending state is feedback. It means that the patch is not clearly
> > yes, but the worst possible feedback.
> >
> > New people assume you or the area maintainer need to still make up their
> > mind
Michael Stefaniuc writes:
>> The pending state is feedback. It means that the patch is not clearly
> yes, but the worst possible feedback.
>
> New people assume you or the area maintainer need to still make up their
> mind on the patch but that's not the case, it is a done deal.
Not necessarily.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > WM_SHOWWINDOW at the start and at the end of every message sequence
> > means that ShowWindow() should be used to hide and show the window
> > during SetParent call processing.
>
> That's the sort of explanation you should have included in your
> patch, instead of e
Christian Costa writes:
> @@ -360,14 +361,17 @@ HRESULT WINAPI STRMBASE_DllGetClassObject(REFCLSID
> rclsid, REFIID riid, LPVOID *
> break;
> }
>
> +if (!GetModuleFileNameA(g_hInst, dllname, sizeof(dllname)))
> +strcpy(dllname, "???");
You don't want to do that i
Alexandre,
On 03/28/2012 10:17 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
>
>> It's very confusing, and absolutely not clear what is required from the
>> patch submitter, especially since *there is no any feedback on the patch*.
>> 'Rejected' at least requies some sort of feedback,
Aric Stewart writes:
> +HRESULT WINAPI BaseWindow_Destroy(BaseWindow *This)
> +{
> +if (This->hWnd)
> +BaseWindowImpl_DoneWithWindow(This);
> +
> +UnregisterClassW(This->pClassName, NULL);
You most likely don't want to unregister the class every time.
> +wnd_class_registered
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> I'm sorry, but that's not a feedback, and casual contributors may even
> not be aware of that patch tracking page. And as I mentioned if the patch
> already contains the tests it's not really obvious what should be added
> in addition. In the light of recent discussions
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> The pending state is feedback. It means that the patch is not clearly
> correct, but that it's complicated to articulate exactly why. Like it
> says, you should try to make it more convincing, either by simplifying
> the patch, or writing a test case.
I'm sorry, but t
On 28 March 2012 07:24, Chris Robinson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 8:35:49 PM Henri Verbeet wrote:
>> - int pixelattrib = ~0;
>> + int pixelattrib = GLX_DONT_CARE;
>
> I want to say there's a reason we used ~0 instead of GLX_DONT_CARE, but it's
> been too long that I can't remember. I th
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> It's very confusing, and absolutely not clear what is required from the
> patch submitter, especially since *there is no any feedback on the patch*.
> 'Rejected' at least requies some sort of feedback, while 'Pending' doesn't.
> To me 'Pending' looks like a silent case
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=17522
Your paranoid android
20 matches
Mail list logo
