On Friday 26 May 2006 15:08, Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Friday 26 May 2006 14:29, Jon Keating wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 10:33:53AM +0200, Ladislav Michnovi? wrote:
> > > You mean it works fine with the patch or witout the patch?
> >
> > Without the patch, it should work fine. I can verify i
On Friday 26 May 2006 14:29, Jon Keating wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 10:33:53AM +0200, Ladislav Michnovi? wrote:
> > You mean it works fine with the patch or witout the patch?
>
> Without the patch, it should work fine. I can verify it on my system.
> How about yours?
I will try again with th
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 10:33:53AM +0200, Ladislav Michnovi? wrote:
> You mean it works fine with the patch or witout the patch?
Without the patch, it should work fine. I can verify it on my system.
How about yours?
Jon
--
Jon Keating
2006/5/26, Jon Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:17:49PM +0200, Ladislav Michnovi? wrote:
> Hello.
> I want to just make sure what was the reason, why this patch was not
> checked in svn?
The main reason is that it doesn't change functionality, it changes how
things are don
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:17:49PM +0200, Ladislav Michnovi? wrote:
> Hello.
> I want to just make sure what was the reason, why this patch was not
> checked in svn?
The main reason is that it doesn't change functionality, it changes how
things are done. The current SVN should be working fine with
Hello.
I want to just make sure what was the reason, why this patch was not
checked in svn?
Regards Ladislav.
2005/11/21, Kevin Krammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
sorry for not finding this earlier, I have been testing with the anonymous CVS
and didn't see that the userinfodlg.cpp file was differe
