[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c |
Date: |
Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:02:33 +0100 (CET) |
>>> It's been a long time, but I think it's really time we completely
>>> remove the old-internals hack and corresponding code. It was only
>>> needed transitively and all client code should have been modified
>>> to not require it.
>
> Patch attached. Werner, feel like committing this?
Not yet, sorry. IMHO the first step for the next release is to
comment out the line
#define FT_CONFIG_OPTION_OLD_INTERNALS
in `ftoption.h' so that the old internals are still available but no
longer activated by default. I've done that right now.
A few months later we can then remove the code completely.
Werner
- [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/10
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, David Turner, 2013/01/10
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/10
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/10
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/11
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/11
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/12
- Re: [ft-devel] ttsbit.c vs ttsbit0.c, Behdad Esfahbod, 2013/01/12