On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Paul Vriens wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2009, at 20:44, James Hawkins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Paul Vriens
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> James Hawkins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Paul Vriens
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thi
On Mar 25, 2009, at 20:44, James Hawkins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Paul Vriens
wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Paul Vriens >
wrote:
Hi,
This fixes bug 17843 but I'm not sure it's a 100% correct. James
didn't
change
this just for the fun of
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Paul Vriens
wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Paul Vriens
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This fixes bug 17843 but I'm not sure it's a 100% correct. James didn't
>>> change
>>> this just for the fun of it.
>>>
>>
>> If you're unsu
James Hawkins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Paul Vriens wrote:
Hi,
This fixes bug 17843 but I'm not sure it's a 100% correct. James didn't
change
this just for the fun of it.
If you're unsure of the correct fix, you should write a test case that
fails without your patch and succee
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Paul Vriens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This fixes bug 17843 but I'm not sure it's a 100% correct. James didn't
> change
> this just for the fun of it.
>
If you're unsure of the correct fix, you should write a test case that
fails without your patch and succeeds with your pa
