On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 20:13:18 GMT, Ambarish Rapte wrote:
> There were two minor merge conflicts in `build.gradle` and one conflict in
> `gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.properties` while cherry picking the change.
> And it also required similar changes to be made for project fxpackager. The
> [fi
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 13:10:53 GMT, Pankaj Bansal wrote:
>> Thiago Milczarek Sayao has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Change test to manual
>
> tests/manual/dnd/DndTestDragViewRawImage.java line 59:
>
>> 57: });
>> 58
> It seems raw images need to be converted BRGA -> RGBA.
>
> It was being converted on gtk2 code path, but gtk3 only uses
> `gtk_drag_set_icon_pixbuf`.
>
> I have simplified the gtk2 `DragView::View::expose` to paint with
> `gdk_cairo_set_source_pixbuf` (that is available since Gtk 2.8) because
There were two minor merge conflicts in `build.gradle` and one conflict in
`gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.properties` while cherry picking the change.
And it also required similar changes to be made for project fxpackager. The
[first
commit](https://github.com/openjdk/jfx11u/pull/49/commits/770
On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 18:17:28 GMT, Ambarish Rapte wrote:
> There was a minor merge conflict at line 3933 while cherry picking the
> commit, otherwise it was clean.
> Verified build on all platforms.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: efcf25ec
Author:Ambarish Rapte
URL:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 18:17:28 GMT, Ambarish Rapte wrote:
> There was a minor merge conflict at line 3933 while cherry picking the
> commit, otherwise it was clean.
> Verified build on all platforms.
Looks good.
-
Marked as reviewed by kcr (Lead).
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/j
There was a minor merge conflict at line 3933 while cherry picking the commit,
otherwise it was clean.
Verified build on all platforms.
-
Commit messages:
- 8220222: build.gradle does not specify clearly the project dependencies
Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx11u/pull/48/
I, for one, would be opposed to moving these discussions off the mailing
lists. Most of the "issues" are straw men.
The mailing lists are a "push" technology so I don't have to do anything
special to get the info since my mail client is always on when my computer
is on.
I do not, and will not, pl
Right, but I don't think this needs to be done as part of the openjdk
organization -- especially not given the informal character I suggest for
this list.
There are a fair number of options where/how the discussion can be hosted.
Ironically, this is something that we might rather have to discuss on
Interesting idea about moving just the openjfx-discuss list to GitHub
discussions, although even that will run into some resistance. Enabling
any GitHub feature as part of the openjdk organization needs buy-in from
the the larger openjdk community, and probably from the OpenJDK Project
Lead.
I also completely agree with Phil that this would need to be discussed
in the larger context of OpenJDK before it could be considered.
The OpenJDK organization intentionally does not use the GitHub issue
tracker, Wiki, or discussion forums. I suspect there will be resistance
to revisiting this
Hi,
I see the value of Github Discussions, but I also see the value of the
mailinglists we are currently using. We have to realise though that this
particular list is about the *development* of OpenJFX, not about *using*
OpenJFX. Therefore, I believe it is ok to be more formal here, and a number
o
12 matches
Mail list logo
