[cairo] [cairo-commit] 2 commits - src/cairo-image-surface.c test/operator-source.c test/operator-source.image16.ref.png test/operator-source.pdf.rgb24.ref.png test/operator-source.quartz.argb32.ref.png test/operator-source.quartz.rgb24.ref.png test/operator-source.ref.png test/operator-source.rgb24.ref.png test/operator-source.svg12.argb32.xfail.png test/operator-source.svg12.rgb24.xfail.png test/operator-source.xlib-fallback.ref.png test/operator-source.xlib.ref.png test/operator-source.xlib.rgb24.ref.png
psychon at znc.in
Fri Apr 1 08:59:35 PDT 2011
On 01.04.2011 00:01, Jeff Muizelaar wrote:
> On 31/03/11 9:48 AM, Uli Schlachter wrote:
>> New commits:
>> commit a80bf9ed43ebb510027f95f623a012c55f7566b3
>> Author: Uli Schlachter<psychon at znc.in>
>> Date: Mon Mar 21 18:46:32 2011 +0100
>> image: Don't use the fast path if it's wrong
> Should this also land on 1.10?
Both the bugzilla bug report and the report on the mailing list are against
cairo 1.10, so I guess that 1.10 also has this bug. The fix is also quite small
and relatively low-risk (IMHO) since it just skips a fast-path.
However, I have no clue what the procedure here is. When you feel like something
is worth it, you just push it to the 1.10 branch? Is there anyone who has to be
asked first? Would the change to the test suite be pushed to the 1.10 branch, too?
"Do you know that books smell like nutmeg or some spice from a foreign land?"
-- Faber in Fahrenheit 451
More information about the cairo