> As a matter of book keeping I notice that 7049339 was recently closed > as a duplicate of 6775390. > So really this should have been pushed under 6775390 which I think had > the better explanation too as well as being the original report.
Sorry about that. I checked 7049339 before pushing, and it hadn't been closed yet. > It also had a ready made test case that probably could have been used. > And I verified your fix fixes that test case. I see there was also a fix posted for it, nearly identical to mine. Why wasn't that commited? > But since the fix was pushed under 7049339 I will swap that around, > closing 6775390 as a dup. of 7049339. Thank you, Denis. ----- Original Message ----- > > -phil. > > > On 6/24/2011 1:52 PM, Denis Lila wrote: > >> Hi Denis, > >> > >> Looks good to me! > > Thanks Jim! > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> ...jim > >> > >> On 6/24/2011 10:19 AM, Denis Lila wrote: > >>> Hi. > >>> > >>> I think this webrev: > >>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/~dlila/webrevs/Bug7049339/ > >>> fixes 7049339 and I would like to commit it. > >>> > >>> At the very least it fixes batik-squiggle printing > >>> and the included regression test. > >>> > >>> Any comments are appreciated. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> Denis.
