I already forked it for myself a couple of months ago. As long as I control the packages which get installed on the machines I have no real issue... except for an uncomfortable feeling that if things like this don't get fixed, what other dragons might be hiding deep down in the xlib library? Now, when somebody would want to run the application on their own install, that's where the shit hits the fan. I'll be forced to tell them to downgrade their xlib to 1.3.3 and file a complaint on this list :-)
On 4 November 2014 10:49, Alexander E. Patrakov <[email protected]> wrote: > Just fork it. I am sure that such antisocial step is the only way > forward, because I also have a patch that was not looked at for too long, > and then rejected because it breaks keystone correction (which was broken > in a different way before the patch). > > > 04.11.2014 13:23, Jan Smout wrote: > > and again... reminder... > > On 28 October 2014 12:51, Jan Smout <[email protected]> wrote: > >> reminder... >> >> On 21 October 2014 12:49, Jan Smout <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Keith, we are approaching the one year anniversary of this bug already. >>> Maybe it is time to finish the patch and leave the issue behind? >>> >>> >>> fyi, I have been running my application with the first version of >>> Jonas's patch for 65 days straight now without a glitch (it used to crash >>> in less than 20 hours). >>> >>> I also intend to restart this long duration test once the final patch >>> will be released >>> >>> >>> On 27 September 2014 05:23, Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Matt Turner <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Jan Smout <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> Keith Packard doesn't seem very responsive (as in 'completely >>>> ignoring the >>>> >> subject') >>>> > >>>> > Perhaps you should try Ccing him? (now Cc'd) >>>> >>>> The problem is that reviewing this patch is *really hard*. The last >>>> time, I think I spent a solid couple of days thinking about this and >>>> making sure I'd caught all of the cases. I'm still not sure it's right, >>>> but I guess it's probably better than what we have? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part. >> > > > > -- > Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part. > > > _______________________________________________xorg-de...@lists.x.org: X.Org > development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel > > > -- Life is complex, it has a real part and an imaginary part.
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
