On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Ryan Underwood wrote:
I have two bugs open on the mga driver that I'd like some feedback on:
http://bugs.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1098
bugs.xfree86.org seems to be down right now, but I've dug out my G400DH
and will try this outr when it comes back online.
--
Well
--- On Sat 06/12, georgina o. economou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: georgina o. economou [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] == it would help if I could spell...
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:51:03 -0400
Subject: bugzilla down
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Ryan
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, georgina o. economou wrote:
Thanks though for the notice. I'm cc'ing Stuart as he may not know.
Sorry about that. Apache fell over this morning, but it's back now.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Super! Thanks again Stu.
G-
--- On Sat 06/12, Stuart Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Stuart Anderson [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:37:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: FW: bugzilla down
Apache fell over this morning, but it's back now
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 05:33:48PM -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Hi team,
I'm not so sure about the proper patching etiquette so I'll ask here,
I seem to have rights to do whatever I want with a bug, so I filed the bug,
I fixed the bug (not in bugzilla), attatched a proposed patch
Hi team,
I'm not so sure about the proper patching etiquette so I'll ask here,
I seem to have rights to do whatever I want with a bug, so I filed the bug,
I fixed the bug (not in bugzilla), attatched a proposed patch, assigned
the bug to myself; but I dont think I should be able to mark
Hi,
in order to fix the core dump described in bugzilla #902
http://bugs.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=902, I need help to
understand the ICE auth specification.
My understanding is that at least 3 fields (protocol name, netid and
auth_name) cannot be of 0 length in an entry stored in a valid
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 14:01, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Is there some way to mark a newly filed bug so it's clear that
there's a patch attached and it just needs to be reviewed and
checked in? According to the bugzilla docs, FIXED means the
code is checked in and there doesn't seem to be any
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Georgina Economou wrote:
I noticed today this notice. Does this matter to us as we are 2.17.4 or
not? And if so, who takes care of this?
I still take careof the bugzilla. I'll look into this, and probably schedule
an update if there is need for security reason,s
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:29:40 -0500 (EST), Stuart Anderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Georgina Economou wrote:
I noticed today this notice. Does this matter to us as we are 2.17.4 or
not? And if so, who takes care of this?
I still take careof the bugzilla. I'll look
http://www.bugzilla.org/
[ 2003 Nov 09 ] Bugzilla 2.17.6 Released
We had a small oops with the 2.17.5 release, whereas one of the new
features that was introduced also introduced a new security hole. For the
full details, read the security advisory. Note that this affects version
2.17.5 only
Is there some way to mark a newly filed bug so it's clear that
there's a patch attached and it just needs to be reviewed and
checked in? According to the bugzilla docs, FIXED means the
code is checked in and there doesn't seem to be any
Fix Provided state other than NEW. It's not clear to me
put [PATCH] in the bug description maybe?
Alex
--- Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there some way to mark a newly filed bug so it's clear that
there's a patch attached and it just needs to be reviewed and
checked in? According to the bugzilla docs, FIXED means the
code
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 11:01:49AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Is there some way to mark a newly filed bug so it's clear that
there's a patch attached and it just needs to be reviewed and
checked in? According to the bugzilla docs, FIXED means the
code is checked in and there doesn't seem
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 02:06:16PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I'm getting ready to submit an XDMCP/IPv6 patch as soon as I finish
testing it that will change the default IPv6 multicast address to the
one IANA finally assigned after we decided to go ahead and start the
standards public review
A number of bug reports have gotten filed against XFree86 4.3
which are actually CVS head bugs. I think it makes sense to add
CVS as a version also, so people can choose that too.
Might want to add CVS 4.3.99.n versions too, but that might be
overkill.
I can report this in bugzilla against
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Egbert Eich wrote:
This is a matter that maybe should also be discussed on 'forum'.
I don't know how to initiate a joint discussion on both lists.
There is a comment on Roland Mainz's changes to make BIGREQUEST size
tunable.
Further comments are welcome.
Egbert.
This is a matter that maybe should also be discussed on 'forum'.
I don't know how to initiate a joint discussion on both lists.
There is a comment on Roland Mainz's changes to make BIGREQUEST size
tunable.
Further comments are welcome.
Egbert.
=== comment by Juliusz Chroboczek
Here is an issue for discussion from bugzilla (submitted by Roland
Mainz). Any opinions? Juliusz?
Egbert.
===
RFE: xc/lib/font/FreeType/ font engine should block opening fonts when there is
no encodings file available
EE Here is an issue for discussion from bugzilla (submitted by Roland
EE Mainz). Any opinions? Juliusz?
I'm the author of this code, and obviously I disagree (otherwise I
wouldn't have designed it this way). I don't feel strongly about it,
though, and have no objection if you decide to change
Ian Romanick writes:
I looked into the code, and I now understand what's going on. Alexis
made a good catch of a very subtle bug! The main problem that I had was
that it wasn't 100% clear at first glance how bufSize / buf / pc were
used. Some form of - 8 should be applied to
There is a report in bugzilla (#439) which claims:
the bug is in xc/lib/GL/glx/glxcmds.c
int bufSize = XMaxRequestSize(dpy) * 4;
should be
int bufSize = XMaxRequestSize(dpy) * 4 - 8;
or more cleanly
int bufSize = XMaxRequestSize(dpy) * 4 - sizeof(xGLXRenderReq);
it happens that you may
Egbert Eich wrote:
There is a report in bugzilla (#439) which claims:
the bug is in xc/lib/GL/glx/glxcmds.c
int bufSize = XMaxRequestSize(dpy) * 4;
should be
int bufSize = XMaxRequestSize(dpy) * 4 - 8;
or more cleanly
int bufSize = XMaxRequestSize(dpy) * 4 - sizeof(xGLXRenderReq);
it happens
Ian Romanick wrote:
Egbert Eich wrote:
There is a report in bugzilla (#439) which claims:
the bug is in xc/lib/GL/glx/glxcmds.c int bufSize =
XMaxRequestSize(dpy) * 4;
should be int bufSize = XMaxRequestSize(dpy) * 4 - 8;
or more cleanly
int bufSize = XMaxRequestSize(dpy) * 4 - sizeof
Egbert Eich wrote:
Thank a lot for your offer!
Currently the bugzilla is maintained by Stuart Anderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]. He managed to find a sponsor for the
machine, volunteered to set it up and host it for us.
He is an experienced software developer and has done X development
for a long
Hello Egbert,
First people advocated that XFree86 has a bugzilla.
Now we have one and people complain that it is broken.
Our expertise is developing X not running a bugzilla.
Where are the people with this expertise, the volunteers
who step up and offer to help us to tweak it so it suits
our
Hi,
I've attached a proposed patch to Bugzilla #306. Please review and
comment. I may have missed something important...
Matthieu
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo
]
anadoo.fr cc:
Sent by:Subject: Bugzilla #306 (Building with
#define BuildRender NO)
[EMAIL
as the default owner for DRI bugs.
Also, what's the general mailing list one can subscribe to receive
notifications everytime a bug is open?
José Fonseca
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 12:07:56PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:04:22PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
An XFree86 bugzilla is now
José Fonseca wrote:
No DRI developer expressed his interest or opposition, probably because
there isn't opposition, or simply no interest. In either case I see no
reasons why not proceed, so I'll open a bug to address this. I'll ask
that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the same addressed used on SF BT
system)
On Fre, 2003-03-21 at 21:07, José Fonseca wrote:
No DRI developer expressed his interest or opposition, probably because
there isn't opposition, or simply no interest. In either case I see no
reasons why not proceed, so I'll open a bug to address this. I'll ask
that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the same
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:04:22 -0500
David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An XFree86 bugzilla is now available at http://bugs.xfree86.org/.
Many thanks to Hewlett-Packard for supplying the hardware, netSweng for
hosting, and the many developers who helped configure and test it.
This is a very
a general owner for DRI bugs, which probably would be
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- automatically set the owner of DRI bugs, e.g., by the users adding a
DRI keyword, or associating the XFree86 Server-DRI extension
component.
- Add the possibility to add comments to bugs via e-mail.
Bugzilla requires
An XFree86 bugzilla is now available at http://bugs.xfree86.org/.
Many thanks to Hewlett-Packard for supplying the hardware, netSweng for
hosting, and the many developers who helped configure and test it.
Enjoy.
David
--
David Dawes
Release Engineer/President The XFree86
34 matches
Mail list logo
