Roderick Colenbrander skrev:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Ove Kaaven wrote:
>> Roderick Colenbrander skrev:
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Austin English
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:50 PM, James McKenzie
wrote:
> Ove Kaaven wrote:
>> This makes it possible
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> Roderick Colenbrander skrev:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Austin English
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:50 PM, James McKenzie
>>> wrote:
Ove Kaaven wrote:
> This makes it possible to work around bug 10080 without havi
Roderick Colenbrander skrev:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Austin English
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:50 PM, James McKenzie
>> wrote:
>>> Ove Kaaven wrote:
This makes it possible to work around bug 10080 without having to patch
the source code.
>>> This is a hack to
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Roderick Colenbrander
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Austin English
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:50 PM, James McKenzie
>> wrote:
>>> Ove Kaaven wrote:
This makes it possible to work around bug 10080 without having to patch
the sour
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Austin English
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:50 PM, James McKenzie
> wrote:
>> Ove Kaaven wrote:
>>> This makes it possible to work around bug 10080 without having to patch
>>> the source code.
>>>
>> This is a hack to allow a work around to function. Much
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:50 PM, James McKenzie
wrote:
> Ove Kaaven wrote:
>> This makes it possible to work around bug 10080 without having to patch
>> the source code.
>>
> This is a hack to allow a work around to function. Much better to
> actually fix the problem permanently.
This is direct3
Ove Kaaven wrote:
> This makes it possible to work around bug 10080 without having to patch
> the source code.
>
This is a hack to allow a work around to function. Much better to
actually fix the problem permanently.
Also, it is preferred to preface your patch with the affected area like
this
