Mike Kupfer writes:
> MikeK> Could be. When I get a chance I'll look for likely looking entries
> MikeK> in the bug database.
>
> I did a search on XRegisterIMInstantiateCallback and found a couple
> bugs, both of which were marked as fixed in, or prior to, Solaris 10.
Jean-Louis, Mike, do either of you have an objection to me marking
this bug as "deferred"? That means it's acknowledged as an XEmacs bug
that we "should" fix, but no current developer has interest/expertise/
platform access sufficient to fix it.
I'm assuming that --with-xim=no is a satisfactory workaround for you,
Jean-Louis. If not, please do "object"!
> to check here regularly for Solaris issues. Though I won't object if
> someone adds me to the Nosy list for issues that could be
> Solaris-specific (on any hardware).
OK. I'm planning to implement a "busy-body" feature where people can
sign up for auto-add to nosy-list on new issues matching some
criterion. Maybe a simple grep on the body for mention of "Solaris"
would work.
> Yeah, I don't have a good suggestion for that. Sun's internal database
> has a separate State to distinguish totally new bugs from ones where the
> category and priority have been sanity-checked. I tend to think that's
> more complexity than we need for XEmacs.
Agreed. I think that's kind of implicit in the Assigned status (and
we can hope that we can train users to do a little sanity checking for
the verified state).
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta@xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
|