Did you restore the code or write new code? I think the prior.
The patch looks sane enough without me looking into it deeply, especially
so if we're reverting code to it's working state.
+1 from me. Push it!
(Btw I like comparisons against 3.5.10, because that way we can keep
ourselves in check)
Calvin
On Mar 22, 2012 12:50 PM, "Darrell Anderson" <humanreadable(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
I submitted a small patch to resolve one of the
biggest irritants on my
hit list, bug report 392 (
http://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=392), Desktop Device
Icon Placement.
The patch is small and restores a snippet of code that was deleted long
ago.
I found the solution by persistent trial-and-error and not any elegant C++
sleuthing. Thus, I ask for a signoff review to inspect the restored code.
I am using the patch here but I'd like to push to GIT.
Thanks!
Darrell
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-devel-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
For additional commands, e-mail:
trinity-devel-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
Read list messages on the web archive:
http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting