[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lmi] SHA1 for wx upgrade

From: Greg Chicares
Subject: Re: [lmi] SHA1 for wx upgrade
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:42:33 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0

On 2020-07-21 23:31, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 22:36:20 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net> 
> wrote:
> GC> I'd like to be able to make the choice by around 10:00Z Wednesday,
> GC> soon after the birds awaken me. Sooner than that is not preferable.
> GC> A little later may be okay if an important regression is found.

We got distracted by business priorities, and haven't been able to
begin our testing yet. I'd like to update on or before 16:00Z
tomorrow, which means "by noon" in our local civil time. To what
SHA1 should we update, though? One obvious candidate is


which links to this:


Looking through the fifteen commits since then, the only possibly
relevant ones seem to be these two:


   Don't call RefreshRect() with negative size in wxGrid code

  Don't bother trying to refresh areas beyond the visible part of the
  window: not only it's useless, but it also results in debug warnings
  from Cairo/pixman due to the use of negative rectangle width/height.

  Closes #18848.


   Avoid -Wconversion-null from MinGW-w64 in wxListBox code

  Explicitly cast the pointer to LPARAM instead of implicitly casting NULL
  to it.

  No real changes.

We already know that the second one only causes an ignored warning
in lmi's wx build, but it seems impossible for it to have any other
effect on us. As for the first, I tried triggering it by resizing
a census window many times--before, after, and during editing a
cell, e.g.--but I couldn't see any diagnostic on my terminal.
Therefore, I don't imagine these commits change anything that lmi
end users can possibly observe, or make any material difference to
us developers, so I guess we should go with the official release,
6cdaedd42ba59331b3dc4ead50e0bac76ae14c19. Do you concur?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]