Re: [e-users] spurious underlines in terminology

2023-03-27 Thread Boris Faure 
Hi,
  I think I have fixed it this weekend in 
bbcedcb95f09e8136dc6dea702e22fe617a318e5.

Have a nice week,

-- 
Boris Faure
Pointer Arithmetician

___
enlightenment-users mailing list
enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users

Re: [e-users] spurious underlines in terminology

2023-03-25 Thread Boris Faure 
On 23-03-22 08:53, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Has anyone else seen spurious underlining in terminology v1.13.0?  I've
> seen it rarely when scrolling up and down in the scrollback buffer but
> haven't been able to reproduce it.
> 
> I got https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033159 the
> other day that claims to be able to reproduce it easily (though I
> can't).
> 
> Thanks,
> Ross
> 
> 
> ___
> enlightenment-users mailing list
> enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users

I've noticed this lately and should be able to easily reproduce it.
I'll try to fix it soon.
  Thanks for the report
-- 
Boris Faure
Pointer Arithmetician

___
enlightenment-users mailing list
enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users

[e-users] spurious underlines in terminology

2023-03-22 Thread Ross Vandegrift 
Hi folks,

Has anyone else seen spurious underlining in terminology v1.13.0?  I've
seen it rarely when scrolling up and down in the scrollback buffer but
haven't been able to reproduce it.

I got https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033159 the
other day that claims to be able to reproduce it easily (though I
can't).

Thanks,
Ross


___
enlightenment-users mailing list
enlightenment-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users